It’s now two decades since Akira first burst into the western consciousness. Up until its arrival, animation – that is to say feature length animation – was monopolised by the increasingly soporific output by Disney. Now we can perhaps see the impact of what it lead to, most famously the popularity of traditional non-manga based anime, led by the ever fantastic Hayao Miyazaki, but also a proliferation of a brand of animation tailored specifically towards adults – even though it was with adolescents they proved most popular. Manga promised them violence, blood, profanity and also a great deal of sex, often involving huge-tentacled demons with a lust that can be best described as insatiable. There have been other important manga works, from Ghost in the Shell and Wings of the Honnemise to the work of Satoshi Kon, from Perfect Blue to Tokyo Godfathers to Paprika. When it arrived, it was as if a new culture had been shown to us; the world of animation would never be the same again.

It begins with a Terminator-like opening caption, telling us the date; 16th July 1988. We see a huge explosion, which could be mistaken for a nuclear bomb, were it not so quiet. We cut forward then to 2019 (surely a reference to Blade Runner), 31 years after the end of World War III, in what is now called Neo Tokyo. Two youths are part of a motorcycle gang roaming the streets in confrontation with both the forces of the law and other more violent gangs. One of them, Tetsuo, is increasingly irritated by the fact that his friend and leader, Kaneda, always seems to get him out of scrapes. While Kaneda is sidetracked by his love for a young underground activist, Kei, Tetsuo comes under the influence of a group of prematurely aged children with special psychic powers. Meanwhile, the military and the government are trying to deal with these ‘children’ in their own way, including the almost-mythical Akira, who may or may not have been the cause of World War III himself.

Otomo’s film, based on his own comic book series, is also influenced by many previous works, from Metropolis and Blade Runner to Tron and even, in its gang culture, A Clockwork Orange, and in its finale, 2001. Many complained at the extreme violence and the very complex plot, which later gives way to its own form of mythological coda. In truth, watched now, it seems like nothing compared to the mythologies weaved into the plots of later manga outputs. Visually, it’s astounding, especially in the surrealist and nightmarish visions Tetsuo has – from his insides dropping out of him, an earthquake which causes him to disintegrate before his very eyes, and particularly an unforgettable sequence in a hospital bed, where he finds himself being attacked by a giant toy bear and bunny, only to have the room flood with milk after he finds his room is made out of giant lego bricks.

What’s perhaps most impressive, however, is the design, a truly unforgettable patchwork which is reminiscent of Blade Runner but hugely individual for all that. He also manages to conclude the film with a sequence in its own way equally as impressive as 2001’s stargate, as we are witness to flashbacks and forwards, including to the birth of the universe. There are even sequences of student riots that eerily look forward barely a year later to events in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The minority who already knew of manga before Akira hit the west must have smiled satisfactorily when people announced a new age in animation; simply, to quote the film, “because it had already begun.”

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

366 Responses

Fantastic addition and essay about one of the greatest and most influential works in not only animation but cinema. Sometimes overlooked when talking about the great science fiction films of the era, but Akira holds its own. With such breath taking scenes as Kaneda’s grotesque transformation or the fabulous ending sequence, its not hard to see why this film helped turn Americans to anime. The cyberpunk setting is so beautifully crafted you’d think you were seeing something taken right from a Philip K Dick or William Gibson novel. This film is often bunched with Grave of the Fireflies, another fantastic anime, as the best animes of the decade, but for me its no contest. Wonderful to see this cult classic get some appreciation. Also great input comment about Tiananmen Square. Never crossed my mind….Erie indeed.

And Allan thinks this is the weakest decade!? He starts his countdown here with one of the greatest animated films in history!? Now I can’t wait to see the rest of his 50! But I will take umbrance in the stating that this film is inspired by films like THE TERMINATOR or BLADE RUNNER. Considering the long periods of time the artists take to lay out, design, choreograph, animate, paint and primp, this movie would have started pre production LONG before the afformentioned “inspirations” were put into production, released and slated for home video. The tediousness that is part of making an animated film of this scope and length would have sent the production time into many long years. AKIRA should be seen as a first of ANY kind and owes itself to no other film. In the advent of computers though, a film like this, now, would take far less time to make. Great essay anf GREAT choice Allan!

Akira didn’t take as long as that, Dennis, old boy, this isn’t Disney. The Terminator was released before this went into production. The comic books started in 1982, but the design of the film wasn’t finalised until around 1986-87.

Yeah, the film was actually finished and released before the manga was– that didn’t end its serialized run until June of 1990. So with the movie, Otomo was basically giving the world a sneak peak as to the ending of his massive comics-effort.

I must say, this is a bang-up beginning entry for the list, and in many ways emblematic of the best filmmaking of the decade. Maybe the reason you’re not so crazy about 80’s cinema is because a lot of it is less driven by character and narrative, say, than the sheer sensory marriage of image and sound. “Akira” is best appreciated as a visual tour-de-force, not quite so much in its sci-fi story of psychotic, spent youths and paranoid authority figures. Otomo is very much a continuation of the Lucas/Scott school of filmmaking, where image, sound design and music are put at a premium to tell stories, rather than scripts or even actors, a set of priorities akin to the silent era.

If there is a major strength to 80’s filmmaking, I’d say it’s tied to its visual strengths. Most of the best films of the decade were the ones that could cross borders from country to country and maintain a sense of meaning by relying on bold images and action– a universal language never lost in translation.

Great points Bob. And certainly these points can be illustrated in many of the best films of this decade. Look to films like BLUE VELVET, RAN and RAGING BULL. These are but just three that illustrate your point perfectly and there are so many more.

Yeah, it’s why, to an extent, I think of the 80’s as one of the most “cinematic” decades of filmmaking, along with the New Wave experimentation of the 60’s and the expressionism of the silent era. The 70’s, by and large, was a much more conservative era for films, when you get right down to it, with storytelling more tied to literary and theatrical techniques (writing and acting) than ones that are unique to film.

There were a few movies in that decade that looked forward to the visualism of the 80’s– stuff by Lucas, Spielberg, Scott and all the usual suspects– just as a fair amount of Reagan-era quality was driven by a kind of 70’s style theatricality– Kieslowski, Fassbinder, etc. But for the most part, the 80’s was a time when what we saw mattered most, which is also why images of eyes and vision in general were so common, as well.

Interesting point, Bob, but I disagree somewhat. I think the 70s was very visual, at least in America, maybe more so than the 80s…but visual in the sense of HOW you saw more than WHAT you saw. I.e. more based on camera movements, lens choice, lighting decisions (which obviously edges over into the WHAT but still), etc.; the 80s were, in a sense, more conservative as far as that aspect of “mise en scene” goes, lavishing attention on set design and visual effects but not as daring in other regards. And as far as editing goes, I think the same is true – montage was a bit more adventurous in the 70s as opposed the 80s, where it seemed more focused on narrative progression and classical cutting. But obviously this reading is limited by what I’ve seen…

MovieMan, this is partly what I’m talking about. Movies of the 70’s could have every bit the artistry and style visually as movies of the 80’s– there’s no denying that. The fact remains, however, that their main core and substance were delivered through the writing of scripts and performances of actors– all the camera movements and lighting certainly helped package those theatrical aspects very nicely, but they weren’t where the real message lay.

Contrast this to the movies of the 80’s– cinematography and camera use was often far more rudimentary, yes, but this is a stylistic consideration, not a substantive one. Visual filmmaking of the 80’s was simpler, at times, but much more dedicated to delivering meaning through pure image. Put simply, dominant visual method of the 70’s was dictating HOW you saw something, while the dominant visual method of the 80’s was dictating WHAT you actually saw.

My statement isn’t based on what’s daring or adventurous. It’s based on the commitment filmmakers had to delivering meaning in their works through theatrical and literary means (acting and writing) or by cinematic means (visuals and editing). Films of the 70’s might’ve been more experimental at times, but they also relied heavily on creative crutches that were thrown aside in the 80’s for a much more focused technique.

“all the camera movements and lighting certainly helped package those theatrical aspects very nicely, but they weren’t where the real message lay.”

Well, I will have to disagree somewhat. I think the Cahiers crowd proved masterfully in the 50s that camera movement and editing and other formal elements should be looked as something more than just a way to tell the story, but as concrete elements themselves – perhaps the carriers of meaning over and above the narrative concerns and dramatic devices (or at the very least in major conjunction with). True, this insight remains somewhat counterintuitive to us even today (part of why it’s brilliant and helpful, I think) and it’s not always what the filmmakers had in mind, at least not in such a self-conscious way, but that doesn’t necessarily delegitimize it. Furthermore, in the 70s a lot of the refocus on formal elements WAS self-conscious so even that argument wouldn’t really hold water (not that you were making that argument, but I thought it should be addressed).

I am actually more impressed with a film which focuses its energy on more intricate means of expression such as movement of camera, framing, lighting, editing, camera placement, lens choice, etc. than on simply what’s plopped down in front of the camera. Also, and I don’t think this was quite true yet in the 80s (but it is definitely true today with the advent of CGI), a focus on what’s in front of the camera rather than HOW it’s shown can lead one towards a one-dimensionality which I find LESS cinematic than supposedly more “theatrical” devices. Though less bound to theater, it can be even more bound to video games and comic books – again, it doesn’t matter what medium you use as inspiration as long as you don’t rely so heavily on it that you neglect the unique properties of your own field. At any rate, the best utilizers of this method, like Spielberg, joined the sheer wonder of the spectacle in front of us with an intensively fluid and majestic command of cinematic language.

Also, I’d be careful defining what is and isn’t “theatrical” – in the 19th century there was a great movement towards theatre as spectacle; and conversely, the uses of story and acting onscreen can be quite different than onstage.

Interesting discussion though – I always like to be discussing formal elements, as they often get lost in the shuffle.

Again, I think we’re talking about different things. Yes, there’s a great wealth of meaning to be found in the ways that directors use camera/lenses apart from how it tells the story, in building an atmosphere and just plain aesthetic brilliance, but it’s something very different from how they use visual technique as part of an overall narrative strategy. In the 70’s, visuals were not used in a primarily narrative register, but in the 80’s they were. This is why I find the work in that more recent decade somewhat more interesting, and of a calibre more genuinely unique to the cinema than other mediums.

For example– compare the storytelling techniques of “The Conversation” versus “Blue Velvet”. One is achieved almost entirely through dialogue and sound. The other is achieved almost entirely through image. This is not to say one is inherently superior or inferior to the other, but simply that one has a completely different narrative approach, relying on different tools.

You could watch “Blue Velvet”, hit the mute button, and more or less still follow what’s going on. I’m not certain you could say the same thing of “The Conversation”, though you could play that film and cover up the television set without losing the most important storytelling element it has to offer. One is a pure film, while the other is more of a hybrid film/radio-drama– granted, that doesn’t tell us which is better than the other, but it does show us how Lynch’s and Coppola’s methods differ on a fundamental level.

Again, I’m making a point here on the narrative method of films in these two decades. Storytelling in the 80’s was primarily visual, while storytelling in the 70’s was primarily aural.

speaking of formalities, i think the 80’s was the initial decade where screenwriting (as a whole) declined, the 90’s got worse, and the 00’s are worse yet.

we can never forget the 80’s brought us the action blockbuster (sure they started in the 70’s but the good ones were still character driven), that’s unforgivable.

and Bob, I still can’t see your undying campaigning for Spielberg. he (and the lucas’s of the world) have done just as much bad for cinema as they have done good. but i’m on the outside as i count the ‘indiana jones’ as poor films…

I’m not campaigning for Spielberg (just because I’m a fan of Lucas doesn’t mean I’m a fan of all his contemporaries or collaborators). In this case, I’m really advocating more the likes of David Lynch– a filmmaker who, in the 80’s, used a much simpler, stronger methodology of camera-placement, lens and movement. The director of “Blue Velvet” and “Twin Peaks” is miles apart from the man who gave us “Inland Empire”. All restraint is gone from his cinematic vocabulary.

ok I see the Lynch comparison and that’s a fair point. I’d also add that the Lynch of the ’80’s is also different of the Lynch in the ’70’s. it’s be interesting to talk to lynch about this, as I’ve always thought something like ‘Inland Empire’ is closer to the film(s) he’s always wanted to make (camera wise) as this appears to be one of the first times (since ‘Eraserhead) that he’s had complete control due to the small budget of this thing. perhaps his restrained style of the 80’s were more the studio butting in by limiting takes, camera moves, ect so he had to tell the story in isolated shots and cuts. just a thought, as I don’t know lynch. it could also be that he’s just a director that’s always evolving, and you don’t particularly like his newer style.

you are also speaking pretty purely on visuals, where as I was talking more about writing, so we weren’t really on the same wavelength.

I just miss his formalism. “Eraserhead” was a film made under all kinds of compromises, as well, with scenes and takes shot years apart, whenever he had free time. Unrestrained as he is now, it’s a little frustrating to see him drop some of the niceties of filmmaking– like a script– for the pure stream-of-consciousness cinema he’s in right now. It may very well prove to be where he belongs (I’d love to see him do “Ronnie Rocket” now) but it’s still very different from the spare, strict filmmaker who gave us a dark dream of troubling things…

And yeah, I tend to focus on the visual side of cinema more than anything else. After all, why else would I be such a big Lucas fan?

“And yeah, I tend to focus on the visual side of cinema more than anything else. After all, why else would I be such a big Lucas fan?”

which is weird, because (IMO) his greatest film–by far– ‘THX-1138’ would not be as high on my list without the genius sound effects (and not to mention cutting) of Walter Murch… what ever happened to that George Lucas?

I’d argue that he’s always been there. It’s just that over the 70’s he drifted to try a more conventionally driven type of filmmaking– something with an actual script, actors who play people who aren’t doped up on drugs– and tie it to his visual approach. We all know how that turned out.

I miss the minimalist Lucas at times, too, but by and large his moviemaking hasn’t changed in the same ways that Lynch’s has. Lucas has added to his repetoire, while Lynch has subtracted.

By the way, Walter Murch’s contribution to “THX 1138” and “American Graffiti” is invaluable, no doubt, but I’d applaud Lucas’ collaboration with Ben Burt as well. Granted, Murch is more of an atmospherist when it comes to sound than Burt. The only one who outdid him in terms of creating a palpable, living world through sound was Lynch’s collaborator, Alan Splet, and I’d say that Splet offered far more of a vital piece to Lynch’s cinema than Murch to Lucas’. Just listen to the difference between “Blue Velvet” and “Twin Peaks”, and there’s a noticeable drop in quality. Granted, it’s also the difference between sound-mixing for film and television, but still…

If I’d made any effort at all to see 80s cinema akin to the effort I’ve expounded on any other decade, I would have seen this film by now…but as it is, Allan’s essay is another spur in my side, encouraging . Oddly enough, though there’s so much 80s cinema I haven’t seen, and what I have (mostly) doesn’t seem to hold up to the best from other decades, I think this is going to be one of Allan’s most interesting countdowns. Looking forward to the rest.

And Allan & Sam, you’ll be happy to know that there is now a Netflix queue devoted entirely to the Wonders films I haven’t seen (with the top of the list constantly shifting as the most “recent” films on the countdown are bumped to the first position). I made room for it by finally knocking off my sluggishly viewed Director’s Chair queue which seemed silly given how few auteurs’ complete oeuvres were actually available on Netflix – plus I’m not really interested in taking that approach to film-viewing at present (watching all of a director’s films together). At any rate my Netflix is currently suspended but when it resumes I’ll be getting Wonders films with some regularity. So you’ve made the cut, old boy!

Also, yesterday I caught up with some of the shorts Allan included which were available on You Tube. The Averys and Warner classics were great (though my favorite was actually one from another list – King Size Canary – which I’d never seen before). I have to admit, despite a few chuckles, Laurel & Hardy’s hilarity escaped me. I love the speed and wit of silent comics but the relative snail’s pace of L&H’s early talkie didn’t really do it for me. Though obviously everyone & their mother disagrees me…maybe another time in another mood (and I remember enjoying other L&H I’ve seen, though it was quite a while ago…)

Anyway, glad to see some more animation on the list. As I alluded to, I’m eager to see if some stop-motion will be on here too; I think the 80s was a great decade for that. No spoilers though, please…

I agree with your comment here–“I made room for it by finally knocking off my sluggishly viewed Director’s Chair queue which seemed silly given how few auteurs’ complete oeuvres were actually available on Netflix”

i’ve always thought netflix should have another membership, that’s maybe a few bucks more a month in which you can rent more films from all regions. call it like a ‘region-free’ membership, in which you sign on knowing full well you have the correct player, ect.

it seemed at the time and in the wake of each film ‘Akira’ was the better film, but over the 20 years or so, I see ‘ghost in the shell’ with the greater impact on films… i mean ‘dark city’ and ‘the matrix’ lift it’s plot pretty closely…

on a side note, any murakami fans here? i love his novel ‘hard-boiled wonderland and the end of the world’ (it’s my second favorite of his probably after ‘the wind-up bird chronicle’), and it’s cyber-punk/noirish elements via japan are very relevant to this conversation. he’s a terrific writer, i think i’ve read about 6 or 7 of his books.

“Ghost in the Shell” is beautiful, but at times a little insubstantial. Partly, it’s due to its slow pace and short length– it feels to me at times like the pilot episode to a great TV series that never gets off the ground. Granted, later on we had “Stand Alone Complex”, which was entertaining, but nowhere near the same calibre. And eventually we had “Innocence” from Oshii himself, a film that seemed to go out of its way to frustrate audiences by avoiding to answer any of the original’s questions as hard as possible. I’m still waiting to find out what really happened to the Major…

At any rate, Otomo’s “Akira” is a masterpiece of two mediums– without a doubt the zeitgeist anime of the 80’s, it’s also a rich, compelling manga, as well. What’s interesting is how the two works, with the same plot and by the same creator, stack up against one another. The anime is mostly a fever-pitch rush of tidal wave sensations, with a focus on three or four characters in a personal, intimite way, an animated version of Dick or Gibson. The manga, on the other hand, is a sprawling, epic work that feels equal parts indebted to Dostoevsky’s Russian panoramas and Lucas’ monomythic cliffhangers.

Like it or not, but without “Akira”, the “Ghost in the Shell” we all know and love probably wouldn’t have happened. It very likely might’ve turned into an OVA that hewed closer to Masamune Shirow’s original of ultra-violence and hyper-sexuality (seriously, google the guy’s name and you’re likely to find flat-out pornography). Otomo raised the bar for more adult-oriented filmmakers like Oshii, and I hope we see more of him in the coming years.

By the way, I understand the comparison between Oshii and the Wachowskis, and there’s clearly a debt there, but it’s largely a visual one instead of plot. They’re all swimming in the same sea that guys like William Gibson and Bruce Sterling invented, anyway. Not sure I agree about Proyas– he’s swimming up the stream of German expressionism, more than anything else.

I agree with what you say here Bob. the idea of ‘Ghost in the Shell’ being a tv series pilot is interesting too.

i’ll have to watch both of these back to back, but I thought the last time i did I came away liking ‘GITS’ a little more. we’ll see what this viewing does.

‘By the way, I understand the comparison between Oshii and the Wachowskis, and there’s clearly a debt there, but it’s largely a visual one instead of plot. They’re all swimming in the same sea that guys like William Gibson and Bruce Sterling invented, anyway. Not sure I agree about Proyas– he’s swimming up the stream of German expressionism, more than anything else.”

i agree with this, but I was speaking more on plot relationships, not visuals… after all most of this stuff owes huge debt’s to german expressionism/proto-noir, and american noir.

Bob:
I’m sorry to hear you are not a fan of Lynch’s INLAND EMPIRE. I loved it. Laura Dern’s big scene half-way through was one of the most startling, disturbing, mesmerizing monologues I have ever seen. I’ll never forget the night I saw this two years ago at Manhattan’s IFC. I walked out shaking. Jamie or Ed, any comments on this one?

Sam, I agree with you. I would also add i’m a pretty big fan of Lynch though (I even adore Lynch the painter, he’s very deft and underrated in this medium)… I saw ‘Inland Empire’ twice in the theater and agree what you say here, I left the theater the first time with such a charge (I saw it alone the first time, as I do all films I really want to see, then the second time with a friend).

As for the visuals I think it’s a sublime direction for Lynch to go; right down to the electronic noise of the (relatively) cheap digital camera. The ‘unsmooth’ gradients of color that makes these weird halo’s makes watching the film interesting just on that.

that and yes, I love his dialogue as usual, that’s his most underrated gift I think.

I didn’t say I’m not a fan of “Inland Empire”– there’s a lot of stuff that I like in the film. It’s easily Dern’s strongest performance. It probably has some of the single most disturbing shit Lynch has ever put up on the screen, which is possibly why I haven’t sat through it again since I took my sister to see it at the New York Film Festival. Those grimacing faces with painted-on smiles, looking like a decomposing blow-up doll– really unsettling. Lynch plays with video in a tremendous way, and creates what is genuinely his most legitimately nightmarish film.

For me, the problem is that there isn’t that much of a story to tie it all together. Its initial narrative of a cursed movie has a lot of potential, but once all of it is dropped so that Lynch can go through the rabbit-hole to Poland several times over, I lose any sense of coherent continuity. All of Lynch’s previous works were built upon the foundations of strong stories, which earned him the right to pull the rug out from under you. Here, the audience never really has any such solid footing, and never has enough time to get used to one dream before it’s substituted with another one.

I’d compare it to the evolution of Bunuel’s cinema– the difference between “The Exterminating Angel” and “The Discrete Charm of the Bourgeoisie”. One has a strong story that is slowly told over the course of the film. The other is several variations on a single theme. The problem for “Inland Empire” is that it’s neither– it’s several variations on several themes, none of which are quite adequately tied together with the explicit instrument of an actual plot.

There’s plenty of clues for you to piece together and string the basic story around, if you want to, but it entails far more active work than “Twin Peaks”, “Lost Highway” or even “Mulholland Dr.” demanded. “Inland Empire” is a one-of-a-kind movie, and a definite step towards something fascinating and new in Lynch’s creative evolution. But next time, seriously, I just hope he writes a fucking script before he starts shooting.

That’s a great point you make there Bob, comparing Lynch’s maturation with the evolution of Bunuel. (specifically moving from ANGEL to DISCREET CHARM) But while I agree that INLAND EMPIRE doesn’t have a strong story, and many not fall into that second category you pose, it’s all part of Lynch’s unpredictable mose of expression. The bottom line (as you seem to corroborate) is that it massively disturbs.

I did laugh at this though, not necessarily disagreeing with you:

“Inland Empire” is a one-of-a-kind movie, and a definite step towards something fascinating and new in Lynch’s creative evolution. But next time, seriously, I just hope he writes a fucking script before he starts shooting.

Bob, I don’t want to knock you, but to say ‘Inland Empire’ needs story help (or that is has no story) while praising ‘The Phantom Menace’ is very curious. You may or may not be correct in your opinion on ‘Inland Empire’ but to not say ‘The Phantom Menace’ isn’t also flawed (for the record I don’t think ‘Inland Empire’ is flawed) is, as I already said, curious.

I’ve also always thought the plot and storyline really isn’t the most important thing to ‘get’ with a Lynch film. As I said, I love ‘Lost Highway’, and ‘Mulholland Dr.’, what is one to take of those plot lines? He seems to always be after expression, and psychology more then A to B to C plot points. You do admit these seem cleaner to you, and that’s fine, I guess I just disagree.

But moving right along. The story of “Inland Empire” isn’t flawed– it’s NON-EXISTENT. True, plot isn’t the most important thing in a David Lynch film, but it’s far more important than you’d expect. All of Lynch’s best works are based on a strong, central story– the arrival of Henry and Mary X’s baby (Eraserheard), the mystery of Dorothy Vallens (Blue Velvet), the murder of Laura Palmer (Twin Peaks) and the identity of “Rita” (Mulholland Drive). Even “Lost Highway” commits to a fairly straightforward noir story of forbidden love and jealousy with a gangster’s moll.

But “Inland Empire”? As I pointed out before, its initial story of the comings and goings on the set of a cursed film is very interesting. But halfway through, Lynch goes through the looking glass a few too many times and doesn’t let us out until it’s already too late for anything to make sense. Between the dancing whores and all the Polish interludes, it’s really difficult to figure out what’s going on because there isn’t a strong central story that everything else is grounded in.

Lynch always said about “Twin Peaks” that the central story of Laura Palmer’s murder was just an excuse to explore all the different crazy things happening in town, and beyond. Much the same can be said of all Lynch’s work, except in “Inland Empire”, there is no excuse for all the craziness, because there is no plot. Nothing for all that surreal cinema-babble to hang on. Still, I like the film. I’m just glad he got it out of his system so he can go back to making REAL movies.

“Even for Lynch this film is radically experimental. Hard to characterise in any meaningful sense it might best be described as an orgiastic and ultimately overwhelming plumbing of the unconscious. Perhaps an essay in ‘identity’, perhaps one on the schizoid modern self, perhaps simply a vision of apocalypse, it is in any case unfathomable beyond a point but all the more powerful as one cannot but yield to it. One might be forgiven though for finding it rather indulgent and excessive!”

“I agree with what you say here Bob. the idea of ‘Ghost in the Shell’ being a tv series pilot is interesting too.”

Curious. As a singular piece of storytelling and atmospherics, I consider Ghost in the Shell to be superior to Akira but one can’t deny that Akira may well be one of the great art films of the 1980’s and obviously, Ghost in the Shell couldn’t have existed had Akira not given the anime medium a reason to take itself seriously.

To me, Akira is very episodic in its narrative, much like the manga is in its epic scope and length. There is an overarching story to Akira the film but it’s secondary to the various sequences Otomo builds off of, many of which are adapted from various issues of the manga (and clearly inspired by the Western sources you note).

Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, has a single narrative from start to finish and a clear character arch. Its musical interludes are more memorable than the impressive action sequences, more like something out of a Wong Kar Wai film than your typical sci-fi.

But who am I kidding? It’s like trying to choose between your own children. I love Akira. Glad to see this film place in the top 50. It truly is a landmark in animation.

Otomo’s anime of “Akira” is perhaps equal to, but by no means superior, to his manga. Oshii’s anime of “Ghost in the Shell”, however, is lightyears beyond the eye-rolling combination of cyberpunk-lite, mecha-action and soft-core porn that is Shirow’s manga. If you wanted to be a geek-snob, you could always say in the case of “Akira” that the book is better than the movie, and get away with it. In the case of “Ghost in the Shell”, you can do no such thing.

Bob, you may or may not have seen Shirow’s Appleseed series. I read the first few sets of it and I found it to be an interesting but somewhat pedantic take on a future where people are more machine than human and the drive to achieve a utopian society is threatened by mankind’s baser instincts in the form of angry AIs and corrupt cyborgs. I actually thought it was really interesting at the beginning, but much like his Ghost in the Shell sequel, it just bogs down into a confusing and rambling narrative exposition that frankly, goes nowhere. But I would agree that much of Shirow’s other work is peppered with weird sexual references and ridiculously overwrought boob girls.

On the other hand, I find much of modern Japanese culture fairly inscrutable from a Western point-of-view. Even their styles of storytelling differ fairly radically from our narrative “norms,” so I often have to wonder if there’s an inherent disconnect between how we read a typical translated manga or anime (or film) versus how its original intended audience perceives it.

Way too much to get into here, but I’m glad some of my comments spurred on some discussion (with just a little help from the preceding ones, of course…)

A few points:

1) I think I may have been reading too much into your point, Bob. It sounds like primarily you are saying that stories were told more through dialogue in the 70s and primarily through actions in the 80s. Am I correct? Certainly, if you are lamenting the lack of a story in Inland Empire your objection would not seem to be to the importance of the screenplay as such!

2) Inland Empire…

I kind of share Bob’s feelings about the lack of a narrative, which I think Lynch needs. But I’d be careful about saying what’s a “REAL movie” and implying one needs a strong plot to make one (which would leave out way too many totally non-narrative experimental films). The problem is more in the fact that Lynch wants to imply there’s a plot without really providing enough to back that up. None of his other films seem to make that mistake. If he wanted to make a totally insensible dreamlike experience, that’s fine with me, but Inland Empire was frustrating because he makes the viewer feel there’s something more going on there, when in fact there doesn’t seem to be much more than just fragments.

Welcome back to the countdown! I love these random comment threads…you never know where they’ll lead!

By the way, I saw The Phantom Menace…sigh, 11 times in 1999. I never then proceeded never to purchase it on video or see it again (in its entirety). Wishful thinking explains that number I guess, that and Natalie Portman’s impression on a 15-year-old boy…

By “real movie”, I mean a movie that shares more in common with the films he’s done in the past, where a conventional story was put in place, somewhat, to anchor Lynch’s surreal vision. As I’ve said before, I genuinely enjoyed “Inland Empire”, it’s just that it holds no real rewatch value for me. As a first-time experience, it’s a rush. Every subsequent experience, however, is actually more bewildering than the last. For Lynch, a conventional plot is akin to a map– it gives the audience a set of expectations which can either be fulfilled or subverted in creative ways. Such a plot is only very tenuously there in “Inland Empire”, and while there’s some thrill of discovery in exploring uncharted territory, there are times when I question the sanity of our fearless leader.

But as I’ve said– with a little more discipline, this new Lynch could be the perfect one to bring “Ronnie Rocket” to life. By the way, the screenplay objection is geared more in wishing there was an action-driven storyline, as there usually is in a Lynch film. Scripts are built of more than just dialogue, remember.

As for “Phantom Menace”– whenever I see a movie more than two times in a theater, I’m always very reluctant to watch it at home. I don’t want that theater-experience taken away by the commonplace domesticity of watching a movie on a TV-screen. I saw “There Will Be Blood” three times when it was out in theaters, and I’ll probably never buy it on DVD or Blu-Ray. I’ve seen “Moon” four times this summer, and still don’t know if I’ll purchase that one, either.

I’m guessing this isn’t the same reason you haven’t watched “Phantom Menace” since ’99, but that’s my experience with obsessive theater-going. Strangely, the “Star Wars” movies are the only films I saw multiple times in a theater that I’ve been willing to watch on DVD, afterwards. Perhaps that’s because I grew up with them on video and TV exclusively, before the Special Editions came out, so I’m somewhat used to it.

Bob, though you didn’t answer the first point I’ll take your statement “scripts are built of more than just dialogue” as a confirmation – at any rate, though I wouldn’t be categorical about it, I sympathize with your point: it is quite refreshing when a film utilizes action to tell its story, “pure cinema” so to speak. And yes, I can see why you would feel this is done more in the 80s than the 70s.

I wanted to believe Phantom Menace was a great movie in ’99 but the more I reflected on it the more that seemed wishful thinking. I don’t think the prequels compare to the original trilogy and, actually, I think the original may be the greatest movie of the six – in part because it doesn’t take itself to seriously and become pretentious. Oddly enough, this allows it to soar even higher than the others, in my opinion.

Among other things, the CGI in the prequels looks too cartoonish and gives the films a rather intangible texture which is unfortunate given the rich settings spawned by episodes IV – VI. But that’s not a point against SW in particular; I think CGI is almost always used that way, except by Spielberg whom I’m sorry to see you don’t hold in as high regard as Lucas (unless I read you wrong).

Somebody once said that because Lucas spent much of the 16 years between Jedi and Menace in business meetings, he didn’t know how else to write the movie except as a series of meetings. It was funny, but also a point well-taken. But enough said on that matter; at some point I will try to read your PM piece and see what your arguments are (right now I have to go to bed).

You know what? If that were true, about business meetings, I think I’d like the movie even more for that, rather than despite it. I like the absurd little image it conjures.

And Spielberg– I can safely say that, aside from some of his early stuff, I feel like I’ve outgrown him. I can say the same thing, oddly, of Terry Gilliam at times. One’s naive childishness seems to go hand in hand with the other’s petulant cynicism.

Bob – “One’s naive childishness seems to go hand in hand with the other’s petulant cynicism.” Yes, I know exactly what you mean though I wouldn’t necessarily apply those qualities to the filmmakers on hand. Nonetheless, your point rings true overall – petulant cynicism is, to my mind, even worse than naive childishness because it actually THINKS it’s more sophisticated.

But I find Lucas to be a far more immature filmmaker than Spielberg. And Jaws is anything but naive and childish, to name just one of his films (and one that is usually considered among the popcorn pictures to boot). Do you feel you’ve outgrown the ones like E.T. and Close Encounters (the latter especially far too complex and compelling to be considered “chilidish” overall even as it achieves a wondrous innocence at its conclusion – though the former is “childish” in a way, and is all the better for it; it may be Spielberg’s masterpiece – but I digress). What about Raiders (which is just meant to be a fun entertainment picture, and obviously has a lot of Lucas in it as well as Spielberg) – and, for that matter, what about Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan?

I think Spielberg is one of the all-time greats and I have to scratch my head every time otherwise intelligent people get in a huff over his “sentimentality” or “manipulation”. It seems like such an easy – yet wrongheaded – point and like a reaction to his popularity and ubiquity rather than his craft. But you, Jon Lanthier (where’s he been lately by the way?) and I think Jamie too (sorry Jamie if I’m wrong) – among many, many others whom I respect – seem to hold this opinion so my semi-bad faith is probably not warranted. Frankly, though, I still don’t really get it. Granted, he can be problematic at times but that’s part and parcel with his gifts. And those gifts are so undeniable it seems a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Actually, it’s old-school Spielberg like “Jaws” and “Close Encounters” that I appreciate the most. “Jaws” has a really nice duality to it– part one is Thorton Wilder-lite, a look at how life in a small town is disrupted by danger and whether or not it’s dealt with, and part two is Hemingway-lite, a look at three wildly different individuals and how they confront said danger. It’s a piece of pure Americana, and as much a product of luck as imagination (“Is the shark working? No? Okay, let’s think of something”). At the end of the day it’s blank as a fart, but at least it smells nice.

It’s the latter-day Spielberg I can’t really get behind. Throughout the 80’s and early 90’s he kept trying to mature as a filmmaker, oftentimes failing miserably (“The Color Purple”– again, gets the traumatic childhood, but not the stuff about race or sexuality). He finally started growing up in subject matter and quality with “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan”, but the consequence of that is that he’s more or less been unable to step back down from those films and return to sci-fi or adventure fare. “A.I.” was an embarassing mess, “Minority Report” was mild fun in the theaters but nowhere near the calibre of “Blade Runner” or even “Total Recall”, “War of the Worlds” was an overwritten, overacted piece of drivel that played the 9/11 card as a cheap, meaningless gimmick. Even his seemingly adult movies, like “Munich”, have more problems for me than I can stand.

It’s that poisonous sentimentality of his that gets in the way, for me. It worked when he made films about childhood, like “E.T.”, when he put away childish things, tht should’ve been the first one to go. Lucas doesn’t have it, and therefore his work is a lot more clearheaded for me. Lucas reminds me of Tarantino in a way, in that they’ve both essentially decided to stay in the same creative perspective of eternal adolescence– yes, there’s a lot of immaturity in both their works (Tarantino especially), but they express themselves as fully and coherently as possible within their own self-imposed limits. Spielberg, on the other hand, was a poet-laureate of childhood whose insistence upon growing up came with a creative price.

The pre-Schindler Spielberg could’ve done “A.I.” justice, perhaps. The sad thing with him, of course, is that he can’t go home again. Now all we can look forward to is another decade or two of the director nursing his mommy-issues before he goes ahead and makes a full-blown movie of “Oedipus Rex”.

Lucas has always been fairly consistent, to my eye. I like how each of his films has been able to blend a certain amount of convention with a certain amount of abstract experimental filmmaking. He might be the opposite of Lynch, in that respect– Lynch needs convention to give his surrealism an anchor for the audience. Lucas, on the other hand, isn’t hurt by convention, but the more and more he distances himself from it, the better his work becomes. That’s why “THX 1138” and the original “Star Wars” are his strongest works– they were inventing rules, instead of following them. Sequels and prequels are fine and dandy, but the more you indulge in patterns, all you can do is make them fit. Expectations arrive, and are either met or subverted. The maverick becomes conventionality. That’s why they call it “fearful symmetry”.

And yet, I enjoy symmetrical cinema. That’s what I’d call Lucas’ work. When all’s said and done, Spielberg could take a lesson or two from the tyger.

Yes, MovieMan you have not misconstrued my feeling on Spielberg. I’m not sure if the sole reason for my dislike is his ‘sentimentality’, or if it’s his very vanilla style film making (at least vanilla to me). Both these things could be masked if he had say, the B-Movie sensibilities of a Carpenter, or had a political backbone, ect. He doesn’t come off to me as very cerebral (which is fine), but at times really tries to be. I would agree with you that most of the time there is still enough good in any of his films to warrant watching them, just to me I generally look elsewhere. He probably IS an American master of cinema, he just does nothing for me. So there ya go.

I will say I believe Spielberg’s masterpiece is ‘Munich’. It was his only ‘serious’ film that never gets to excessively heavy handed, and there is no neat emotional tie up at the end (similar to ‘Schindler’s List’s’ color sequence at the grave site at the conclusion). Spielberg does hold something for me personally in that ‘Jurassic Park’ was the first film I ever saw multiple times at the theater at 12 or so.

I also generally judge Spielberg (and heck Lucas) just as much for the ‘good’ they’ve given us, as the ‘bad’. One cannot deny the blockbuster CGI fests had nothing to do with these two guys. That’s somewhat unforgivable to me.

I completely agree with your point about not thowing the baby out with the bathwater, taking an artist’s weaknesses along with their strengths. That’s how I am with Lucas, and frankly, most of my favorites. Lynch, even on his best days, is incapable of writing dialogue that sounds as though it could be spoken by actual human beings, or even invertebrates (this is why by and large I like his collaborations in “Twin Peaks” and “Lost Highway” best). Mann doesn’t seem to care if audiences can see what’s going on through his fetishistic video-vision, or understand a word coming out of his psycho-professional cops and robbers’ mouths (seriously, “Miami Vice” practically needs subtitles to cut through the lingo, at times). And Polanski…

Something I haven’t mentioned: For the past few years, I’ve read and reread Otomo’s original six-volume manga every summer, and it never gets old or boring. Along with “Animal Farm” and “1984”, which I always read in the winter, for some reason, it’s one of the few works that’s scheduled reading for me. It’s been a long while since I’ve checked out the film, though, partly because I’ve gotten so attached to the long-form comics experience Otomo did such a good job of creating. I’ve thought about digging it up again to gague the differences between the original and the adaptation, especially since this is one of the few occurances where the author of one is director of the other. Now, I’ll have to move up the schedule for that.

“Keep the Apidistra Flying,” parts of “Why I Write” (I have the Penguin book, in which I’ve read the original essay and about half of “The Lion and the Unicorn”– I think that’s what it’s called). I’ve started to read “Homage to Catalonia” once, but lost interest in it early on. That’s the one I’ll return to first. Sad to think of Orwell, though– he died just as he’d begun a new high in his career. Would’ve been nice to see what he might’ve come up with next.

I can understand the appreciation for it. First time I saw it, I thought it was for the best that Spielberg was the one to do it– had it been Kubrick, audiences would’ve been slitting their wrists on the way to their cars. Still, I can’t help but feel that it fits into an increasingly Oedipal pattern for Spielberg, and that it’s really broken his stride as a filmmaker.

And I can respect that position too Bob. Interestingly enough, your Aspect Ratio colleague Ari, who actually placed a lengthy comment under my review, was a big fan. But it did split the critics. I guess it all depends on how powerful it hit you on an emotional level. I’ll admit the last third was problematic for many.

Actually, I kind of agree with you there, though I think his work is still interesting. But his 00s work is definitely different – for better or worse – and does not cohere or proclaim itself as boldly as his early films. Also, the 00s films are darker, more complex, more confused – despite their graphic nature Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan still feel more at home with Jaws, E.T., and Close Encounters than with AI or Munich.

I do think this recent development is a maturation in his thematic outlook and approach (something I suppose Jamie disagrees with) though it’s had somewhat of an impact on his stylistic assurance – somehow I don’t think even his worst films of the 80s or 90s are as messy as The Terminal (which I actually enjoyed despite itself) or, truth be told, Munich.

I have to agree with Movie Man here unreservedly, although I greatly respect Jamie and Bob, and all the great taste and expertise they’d consistantly displayed on these threads. In fact, I was always rather perplexed at why Jamie thinks MUNICH is Spielberg’s best film, when for me it’s one of his worst. It’s the antithesis of his style, his world-view and his essence as a filmmaker, and seemingly was a stop gap. Yes, there’s little doubt that Spielberg’s 2000 work is darker, more reflective, and more philosophical than the earlier work, SCHINDLER’S and PRIVATE RYAN included. I applaud this maturation, which may yet move him away from the stereotypical critical conception that in the eyes of a fair number has unfairly maligned his career.

I enjoyed Munich – I’ve ENJOYED pretty much every Spielberg film I’ve seen, even the long, absurd, and pointless Terminal which still broadcast the director’s irrepressible imagination – but mostly for its historical context. I did not think it held up overall – in fact, while certainly less ambitious, War on the Worlds might have been a tighter, more well-executed film.

It’s odd, Sam, I will always prefer the more childlike yet formally astonishing Spielberg to the more uncertain, yet thematically more complex auteur of latter years. Yet I don’t at all mind the change – I think he hit all the high notes he could in his former vernacular and welcome his moves in new directions. Artists can’t really stand still, even if by staying in flux they are unable to scale previous heights – and that’s fine by me.

You are quite right that the 00s “serious” films have been darker, more reflective, and more philosophical than the 90s “serious” films. I kind of LIKE the “childlike” viewpoint – almost mythic in its un-self-consciousness (if that’s the right word) – of Schindler and Ryan, but it’s hard for me to see how those who didn’t don’t recognize the change.

By the way, I’d love to hear Allan’s thoughts on the director. Though I certainly don’t get the sense he’s one of his favorites, Spielberg still seems to get a fair amount of respect from Mr. Fish, who placed E.T. and Jaws comfortably in the pack of nearlies for the 80s and 70s, respectively, and who has mentioned Schindler’s List favorably in the past. Would I be correct in speculating that Allan sees Spielberg as a good director, perhaps overrated by some but not enough to incur massive resentment? Or am I off-base here?

You are absolutely correct Movie Man. in fact, lo and behold I spoke with Allan on the phone earlier this afternoon, and Spielberg was the topic. I continue to maintain that for a number of reasons EMPIRE OF THE SUN is his masterpiece, but Allan says SCHINDLER’S LIST is the only 5 star film of the director’s while E.T. and JAWS rate 4 1/2. He gives A.I. 4, and the rest of his work falls below that. But you must understand that Allan is a self-admitted cynic, and Spielberg is an affrontery to his gloriously grim world view. he will come back at me with a vengeance tomorrow when he reads this, but I stand by my position that Spielberg is one of the five. greatest living American directors: the other four of course are Allen, Scorsese, Coppola and Lynch. The sixth would have been the recently-deceased Altman.

I have to give that shortlist some thought (and if I agreed, it would be only the caveat that we’re judging their whole careers, not there present output or else I would actually put Coppola fille over Coppola père). However, I meant to imply I was more surprised, and kind of impressed, by the fact that Allan – even cautiously – rates Spielberg rather high, as many cynics don’t. But, rather ironically given his reputation and frequent persona – and clashes with Tony on the subject – he does have seem to have a popular streak in him…

Allan DOES have a popular streak in him, and he has a weakness for epic cinema, that the most ardent critics would scoff at. Mind you, he goes after some films with a vengeance, as that DRIVING MISS DAISY bruhaha proved, but he does capitulate. Incidentally, Pauline Kael’s reasonable love for that film seemed to shock many here, as there seemed to be an erroneous supposition that the film received bad reviews, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth.
As far as what you say there MM, yes, I was referring to COMPLETE CAREERS, not present work, although Coppola’s TETRO is nothing to sneer at. Career-wise, no other American can match those five in both their prolific contributions and number of outstanding works.

I have not seen Tetro though I did see Youth Without Youth. In fact, Coppola spoke before the screening I attended, and Murch, among others, spoke afterwards. I think both of them said they were restless and wanted to hit the refresh button, going back to the feeling of making a student film. And, well…unfortunately they succeeded.

(Snark aside, the film was interesting but occasionally cringeworthy. Still, I’ll take that over unadventurous movies any day, and it definitely marked a step forward, a tangible testing of boundaries which you hardly ever get from even the best directors nowadays. But yeah, it did sometimes feel like a sloppy experiment!)

Sam, the only director who pops to mind as a contender to the spot those five covet is Malick. I find the work of Michael Mann, Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, the Coen brothers, and maybe Jim Jarmusch (at least on the basis of Stranger Than Paradise, one of my favorite films) provocative and occasionally even great (aforementioned Paradise, Big Lebowski, Do the Right Thing, JFK & Platoon, Last of the Mohicans – truly underrated!, and I’ll give you Fargo if you really want it) but I don’t think any of them have knocked off several masterpieces the way even Coppola or Allen – whose heyday was 30 years ago – have. I think the young directors of today – Wes and P.T. Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Aronofsky though he’s lost some of his appeal in my eyes – have greatness in them. Sofia’s even knocked one out of the park (some would say P.T. has too and, like Fargo, I’ll grant it if they really want it). But one feels – and hopes – that their best work still lies ahead of them.

Ha Movie Man, all those choices did contend till the end with me (and with Allan) I dismiss Mann and Lee, (although the latter had two exceptional films, DTRT and MX, and the former some strong ones) Jarmusch does admittedly push close, but he never made a single truly great film, although Ed Howard and some highly respected art house people feel DEAD MAN is a masterpiece. I don’t agree. The Cohens of course should be mentioned, and before their career is over they will be there, IMO. FARGO is a very great film, as is NCFOM. Sophia is far from the short list, Wes Anderson is a fraud, and Paul Thomas, yes he is a serious contender. Aronofsky is another who could make it down the road. THE FOUNTAIN is a masterpiece.

and as to Mr. Malick, yes he would be there if not for the fact that he made only four films. But it could rightly be argued that every one is great, and if TREE OF LIFE scores big, we may just have to include him with those five, replacing Altman.

I definitely think Malick belongs on the list. I have not seen Dead Man but the little Jarmusch I’ve seen suggests his sensibility is not really in tune with my own; besides he seems to prefer the minor key, eschewing the kind of work that could result in a masterpiece. And yet, Stranger Than Paradise IS I think a very great film.

As for the youngers, the question of Coppola essentially hinges on whether or not you think Lost in Translation is a masterpiece (and if you don’t, you probably didn’t like it all, it’s one of those). We know you emphatically did not, while I think it very well may have been. I suppose posterity will tell…

I also would not dismiss Wes so cavlierly. Life Aquatic and Darjeeling Limited (ironically) more than showed his limits and reminded us that he has to break out of his self-imposed ghetto. But when the style was still fresh, it produced genuine visceral astonishment: Rushmore & Royal Tenenbaums still feel like gems, and I sometimes humor the idea that the former may be a great film, though ultimately I’m not quite sure it makes the leap. In a sense that question is academic, because I can watch it over and over again. Yes, there’s preciousness there, but also a wonderfully felt sensibility (especially in the works co-written by Owen Wilson) which has been much imitated, but never re-captured by the imitators. His films exist in the sensitive imagination of a bright, melancholy, deeply romantic adolescent which is both their strength and their drawback. But not the sort of thing that should be brushed off lightly, methinks – and certainly not fraudulent.

We’ve been over The Fountain before, as for P.T. I respect him without quite digging him. There Will Be Blood seemed like a mess of a story taken in hand by masterful directorial craftsmanship, while Punch Drunk Love was a minor triumph – not forgetting the “minor,” and Boogie Nights and Magnolia, for all their accomplishment, or perhaps in part because of that, exuded a somewhat offputting self-satisfied arrogance. However, I concede that these are personal caveats and don’t have too much bearing on the quality of the work or their auteur. He may not be one of my favorites, but he’s obviously got “it” in spades.

I will mention one other name which will probably be controversial: Andrew Bujalski. Overall, I find mumblecore intriguing, but mostly for its potential and a few very minor victories; however Bujalski’s talent puts him completely outside the ghetto of this “movement.” I slipped inside his two films as if they were dreams and was greatly impressed by the skill with which he assembles his hermetic little 16mm worlds. He’s definitely one to watch.

Oh my sweet Jesus Movie Man. i saw Bujalski’s BEESWAX on Saturday night at the Film Forum, and listened to the director host the Q and A. I did not like the film at all, and found the mumblecore grating. So you feel he’s something to look for. Now I feel guilty. I’ll have to see this a second time.

Fair enough on Malick. He does belong there, granted and I like him areal lot too. But Wes Anderson is a trendy operator, who I feel down the road will be seen as a lightweight. Sophia must prove herself further, methinks. I will agree with you however, that THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS is his one very strong film, with RUSHMORE as the runner-up. Yeah those others can be put aside.

Sam, I haven’t seen Beeswax. Keep in mind his first two movies preceeded all the other “mumblecores” and indeed even the dubbing of that monikor, so they were not beholden to any idea of a movement. Perhaps it’s gone to his head or the intervening years and press have confused his vision (Mutual Appreciation, his last one, was made 5 years ago). I don’t know. But Funny Ha Ha and Mutual Appreciation are definitely worth looking into.

But like Bujalski with mumblecore, except probably even more so, Anderson trascends the trends he spawned (and by the way, he is to 00s pop culture what Tarantino was to 90s – the single biggest aesthetic influence on independent cinema and by extension, the culture at larger).

I can truly say that some of the moments he’s crafted are transcendent, pure magic. And that has to be reckoned with, no matter how many crutches he relied on. (Also, as previously stated, I think Owen Wilson as co-writer brought out the best in him – the most humanist, the most melancholy, the most TRULY romantic – because genuine romanticism must be both engaged with reality and in touch with pain).

Spielberg has a greater range than some of his contemporaries, but I’d still put a guy like Lucas above him any day of the week. Part of it is my appreciation for the originality a writer/director must exhibit over a filmmaker who only directs– a bias I’ve tried to get over in my years, but proves to have quite the stubborn streak. Lucas has directed far fewer works than Spielberg– altogether, he’s only done four complete film-projects himself, an output more or less on the same level as Malick– but each one of them is an important, if not always perfect work. Spielberg, on the other hand, has littered his filmic contributions with hits and misses alike– not merely works that were unpopular with critics, but massive, defused duds to audiences at large, as well. Like them or not, the Prequels were seen by everyone, challenged by many, and championed by a few. They’re among the most influential films of the past ten years.

What was Spielberg’s last truly influential film? Probably “Saving Private Ryan”– thanks to him, WWII may never end in the eyes of pop-culture. Cinema-goers and video-game enthusiasts alike might just never leave Omaha beach. Since then, however, the man seems to have been in search of something worth saying, and something worth saying about.

If I were to list the five most important American directors of the past twenty-five years, they’d be Lucas, Lynch, Tarantino, Scorsese and Soderbergh. These aren’t necessarily the five best, mind you, but the five whose output has most indellibly shaped modern American and world cinema. I have no idea who the most important American directors are right now, and I’m not sure I care. The present ought to be the one place in time untainted by the hunter’s scent of critical perspective.

Heh, nothing compared to mine. Seems like every week someone’s mentioning an impending new release which I wasn’t even aware existed. Last week it was G.I. Joe, this week it’s District 9 (granted the latter sounds much more intriguing than the former, though I’m quite skeptical about its use of aliens in Johannesburg as a metaphor for apartheid – assuming it was described to me correctly).

“G.I. Joe” was surprisingly decent– it’s the first new action movie I’ve seen in YEARS that keeps the coverage steady enough for you to actually tell what the fuck is going on. No “Bourne”-style shaky-cam or choppy-editing. Is it dumber than a bag of rocks? No– it’s only just as dumb, which is actually a step up from Darwin Award winners like “Transformers”. At least it doesn’t take itself too seriously, and hey– it’s got Mr. Eko in it! Good for him.

I’ll see “District 9”, but if the whole Johannesburg/Apartheid angle is as accurate as what you’re talking about, I might just find myself rolling my eyes. Didn’t we already have something like that with “Alien Nation”, only without the action and explosions? “District 9” has great potential, but it also has the potential for heavy-handedness, which might be just enough to derail it. We’ll see.

Interesting statements on G.I. Joe. I still won’t see it, but I greatly respect an action film which rejects the presiding Bourne aesthetic. As for District 9, its concept irks me on a few levels: one, if it’s an allegory for apartheid, why actually set it in South Africa? Why not set it elsewhere (it’s my understanding that the director grew up in that country but moved elsewhere later on). And why use aliens as the victims – when in fact black South Africans were both the majority in their country and that country’s native population; the transposition (coupled with, apparently, the use of blacks alongside whites as the oppressors) is not only incoherent, but also kind of offensive if you think about it. The film would sound more plausibly compelling to me if presented as a metaphor for paranoid racist Afrikaner’s visions of themselves as an enchroached and threatened minority, i.e. an inside look at the mindset of a fascist (such as Birth of a Nation inadvertently presents – or as Starship Troopers allegedly encapsulates, though I thought the satire got lost by the ending).

Again, major caveat that these reservations are based on the version of the film which was presented to me anecdotally; I haven’t even seen a trailer for the thing. I could be completely misunderstanding it. But if I’m right about its intentions, I think my concerns make a good deal of sense.

As for Lee, Scorsese & Lucas– I’m talking in terms of influence at the moment, not in quality. If we were talking the past 30 years, then Scorsese is a no brainer. But Lee has been a huge part of cinematic and political history, as one of the first major black voices in film to reach the mainstream, and affect it. He’s been hit or miss, too, but his hits have all been game-changers.

As for Lucas– all special-effects? I really don’t know what to say about that. I think partly it’s a matter how much those special-effects are paired with narrative elements you either identify with or appreciate. With Lucas, I really dig all the weird political speak and military-industrial complex conspiracies running about, not to mention the emo-angst of the once and future Vader. With somebody like, say, Jackson, it’s a lot harder for me to see beyond the artisty of Weta Workshops– the dilemma of the One Ring feels like a paper-thin metaphor at times, and while I like the “Treasure of Sierra Madre” moments between Sam, Frodo and Gollum, I could give less than a shit about the rest of the characters, especially Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortensen (seriously– I hear his name, all I can think of is the painting from “Ghostbusters II”).

I’ve never minded special-effects. Paired with the right ideas, pacing and angles, they can be quite rewarding. However, a lot of it comes down to personal preference. I can make excuses for Lucas that I can’t for Jackson, just to name one example. I will say, however, I’m always glad to see an epic film that at least tries to do as much as it can in the real world. I’m still jonzeing for a sequel to “Mongol”…

Well Bob, you hav edefended your position quite excelelntly there, so I can’t say much other than it’s personal taste at play here. And yes, Lee’s political significance is irrefutable. I was talking career-wise with the original query.

I forgot about Soderbergh. Though, now remember him, I don’t think he’d be on any of my various lists. He’s facile (in the good sense of the term, though also maybe in the bad), quite prolific, multi-talented, and diverse. But nothing I’ve seen by him really suggests greatness, even the ambitious Traffic. Then again, I’ve not seen several of his most-praised films (sex, lies, and videotape or more recently Che) so perhaps he’ll surprise me.

I quite like your last sentence, although this hunter can’t help resist (however impeded by his overgrown-due-to-neglect and difficult-to-navigate hunting rounds…)

I like Soderburgh a lot too. But his best film was his second: KING OF THE HILL, which many haven’t seen. Th eproblem is again is: yes he’s consistent, but did he really ever make ONE great film? I don’t think so though KING comes close.

If all he directed was “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction”, he’d still be one of the most important directors of the past 25 years. His success almost singlehandedly spearheaded the independent film movement into the headlines of the mainstream. Some might deride him as a mere poster boy, but for me, he’s essential.

Am I wrong to think that Tarantino and Lucas are almost exactly the same type of filmmakers, just from different creative backgrounds and different genre-obsessions? I don’t think I am.

Sam, I assume you mean Whit? But he’s well into his 40s now, and while I like Metropolitan (the only film by him I’ve seen) I haven’t heard much to suggest his later work was as compelling – though reputations have been proved wrong by closer scrutiny in the past so who knows…

My personal opinion is this: as a DIRECTOR, George Lucas is a NON-ENTITY. Only four films credited to his name as a director. THX1138 is a slapped together hodge-podge of ideas that is neither influential or remembered. AMERICAN GRAFFITI is a nostalgic one-hit-wonder that entertains but is largely forgotten days after viewing it. STAR WARS, while entertaining, introduces grand scale special effects as the center of the film with an embarassingly thin story arc as its coating. Itks influence on film is that you can do anything VISUALLY. Other than the points just made I can see no other reasons to continue a serious discussion on thr worth of Mr. Lucas as a great director. I’ll admit he has contributed to film on a massive TECNICAL level, but more than that makes a defender look foolish. To utter his name in the same breath with Scorsese, Lynch, Spielberg, Coppola, Allen, or for that matter, Fincher, PT Anderson, and Tarantino is fool-hardy.

Malick only has four films to his credit– do you think we’re going to stop hearing about him anytime soon? “THX” is far more influential than you give it credit for, the only truly quality dystopian film out there, and one of the few legitimate hard sci-fi flicks as well. “American Graffiti” isn’t a favorite of mine, but is for plenty of others. Between those two films alone, you could probably account for a large part of Fincher’s film vocabulary. And while I’m not going to keep harping on “Star Wars” here, to dismiss it as a mere technical feat is a little condescending. The narratives of the six films might be simple enough for a child to understand, but that was the point– blending classical myths and legends with sci-fi dressings. Granted, the whole Joseph Campbell angle has been severely overplayed over the years, but it’s been unfortunately taken for granted, as well.

At any rate, all his films share a host of qualities in common that easily put him within an inch of the greats you casually list. He’s one of the first directors to ever really maximize the full potential of the 2:35.1 aspect-ratio in terms of composition, angle, movement and palate– even pros like Lean, Kubrick and Kurosawa didn’t know quite what to do with it at times; only Godard and Tarkovsky before him handled it with the same comfort. His skill with tightening pacing has sped up the vocabulary of editing tremendously, without quite falling into the traps that guys like Tony Scott and others would stumble into in the 90’s. Special effects are only the most obvious of his creative transactions, and ironically, it probably represents his least legitimate contribution– after all, wasn’t Lucas merely standing on the shoulders of Douglas Trumbull, taking advantage of technology he pioneered? If you want somebody to blame, take it up with him.

Not all of George Lucas’ films are truly great, but he’s easily one of the great directors.

Shit, even Lucas would admit that Spielberg is a far better director. His own story and script for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was handed over to SPIELBERG as the director because he wanted someone who had the talent to helm the production. If that doesn’t say something I don’t know what does. Name one film by Lucas that could stand up against any of the serious work by Woody Allen (CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?), Lynch (THE ELEPHANT MAN? BLUE VELVET?), Coppola (THE GODFATHER? APOCALYPSE NOW? DRACULA?), Spielberg (SCHINDLERS LIST? MINORITY REPORT? SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? WAR OF THE WORLDS?) Scorsese tGANGS OF NEW YORK? THE AVIATOR? RAGING BULL? TAXI DRIVER?). You have passion Mr. Clark, just wish it was directed at someone worthy of that passion.

I’m not sure all of those are the best examples you could pick for those directors. “The Aviator”? “Minority Report”? “War of the Worlds”? Nowhere in the same league as their directors’ best work, even on a bad day. “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”? A good piece of campy fun (I especially like the score) but a guilty pleasure, at best. “The Elephant Man”? Good, but forgettable compared to Lynch’s other films. “Crimes and Misdemeanors”? Granted, I’m of the minority that finds Allen to be tiresomely overrated at times, but even I believe he’s created much more rewarding films than that.

The least of Lucas’ films are easily stronger than any of those, and his best have no trouble being spoken of in the same breath as “Shindler”, “Ryan”, “Bull” or “Driver”. He may have directed far fewer films than any of the directors you’ve mentioned, but all of them command attention.

and then there’s the guy who would laugh like hell all over this argument. STANLEY KUBRICK, arguably the biggest inspiration to most of the directors discussed tonight happen to think Spielberg was the cats pajamas. How is it that Lucas could hand one of his love children (RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK) to Spielberg? Funny, I recall KUBRICK handing over one of his love children (A.I. Artificial Intelligence) over to Spielberg as well. And let’s not forget that it was Scorsese who was set to direct SCHINDLERS LIST but handed the film over to SPIELBERG because he knew he didn’t have the film-making chops to tackle it. You have a love for George Lucas Mr. Clark. Enjoy him. Nobody’s stopping you. But, the concensus HERE at WitD is that he’s lightweight in comparison to the other directors so brilliantly defended by our respected contributors. I liked STAR WARS as a kid. I still marvel at the visual grounds it breaks. But what’s the old saying: “WHEN I BECAME A MAN I PUT AWAY CHILDISH THINGS.”

(1) Wasn’t Lucas’ decision to hand over “Raiders” to Spielberg more based on giving his friend something to do with it? Spielberg had tried for years to convince the EON producers to let him direct a Bond flick. When Lucas heard that, he dusted off the old Indiana Smith notes he’d cooked up with Phillip Kaufman back in film school and decided to bring it back to life. It wasn’t so much handing over something to Spielberg, but deciding it would be a good idea to work on something together with him.

(2) Call me crazy, but Kubrick’s decision to hand over “A.I.” to Spielberg was probably the biggest creative mistake of his life. Just my opinion. I honestly can’t stand that film.

(3) If I remember correctly, wasn’t Scorsese’s decision to walk away from “Shindler” more due to the fact that he felt he couldn’t do the Holocaust story justice, as a gentile? For a while it was almost directed by Billy Wilder.

Great discussion here everyone. I would say Scorsese is probably the greatest American director since Welles and Ford. His global influence possibly exceeds even that of those two directors. As an artist though Terence Malick is second to none and he is one of the great auteurs of American cinema. But no American director might have made a film as central to his era as Coppola did with the two Godfather films. Scorsese’s influence on a global scale exceeds Coppola as a matter of establishing a visual grammar which has inspired many many directors the world over. But even Scorsese might not have a single film to compare with the incalculable influence of the Godfather movies. The latter films manage to be popular favorites as well as critical ones which one cannot say about too many other even great films. Raging Bull or Taxi Driver are not drivers of popular culture the way Godfather is.

I would never put Spielberg on any list of great directors. He has been an enormous cultural force. It is impossible not to grant this. I love many of his films. But he has no lasting legacy in a critical sense. Sure, he’s contributed to an entire history of summer blockbusters (besides the ones he himself made). And yes he’s received good reviews for a lot of his ‘serious’ work (many of these films I like very much, for instance Empire of the Sun or Munich). And he certainly has range. But the latter does not equal ‘signature’ and this is very important for a director. Spielberg’s truest signature might be located in his popular entertainers. Should we value directors less who do not have an obvious signature? Let’s answer it this way… what would we think of a composer whose one work sounded sounded somewhat like Beethoven’s 9th, another like a Dvorak folk dance, yet another like a Chopin etude and so on. Each work would in its right be artistic enough but there wouldn’t be enough individuality to it for a variety of reasons to grant it too much. Hawks is a director who sometimes suffers for similar reasons and again I think not unjustifiably. So it isn’t that one should be obsessed with a ‘signature’ and yet an absence of style coupled with not the greatest originality makes it very hard to judge such directors. To be the artistic version of Ron Howard deserves credit but in my book not enough to rank one with the greats. Incidentally I also believe Spielberg’s influence will dim with time. The Jaws or Close Encounters kind of film will retain classic status. The serious films have never created more than ripples in any case barring Schindler.

As a general matter I think the word ‘masterpiece’ is much overused and abused! What does it mean beyond a point? Rembrandt paints a masterpiece as does Andy Warhol. The two are not equivalent! Within a framework a work might be deemed perfect or very strong. And yet such a work might seem inferior to another such work in another framework. The word ‘masterpiece’ obscures the fact that one framework might just be much ‘weaker’ than another one. Sophocles wrote masterpieces as did Gilbert and Sullivan. No one would think of comparing the two. But of course the field of cinematic criticism (I always ruffle some feathers when I say this) is greatly marred by all kinds of obscurantism. It is not about one theory or another, or one supposition or another. This would be true for criticism in any other art/entertainment form as well. It is about being very unclear about what constitutes the ‘artistic’ in the cinematic field. Perhaps a case might be made that cinema manages to render problematic many notions of the theoretical. It might be that cinema is a somewhat ‘special’ medium in this sense. I am not saying I agree with all of this but such a case might be made. However it hasn’t been made so far. So the framework of film criticism often rests on quicksand.

Painting seems like such a weird animal when comparing it to film. I think this has so much to do with that painting (the kind we are talking) is two dimensional and singular. It’s a flat singular image. Cinema is a story form, linear. Even when cinema isn’t linear it still has some sort of beginning medium and end. That’s why it’s easier to compare (or in the same breath) discuss Godard and Spielberg, even though they are light years apart. Thats also way literature can more or less be compared no matter the age.

In painting comparing Rembrandt to Warhol seems way different. Much of this is because the age of painting (it’s centuries old), where cinema is the youngest art form.

Add in the fact that some one like Spielberg is still basically constructing shots and sequences like Ford did and it seems weirder still. Imagine if a painter today painted like someone equivalent to the past as ford is to Spielberg. (try to follow: painting we are interested in is say 1500 years old, whereas Cinema is 110. so going back 3/4 of the art forms life–as Spielberg is doing to Ford– in painting would put us at about what 1100 years ago) This seems insane. Comparing Rembrandt to Warhol was strange enough.

Not sure where I am going with this, but I hope you guys see my point(s).

so basically, yes the ‘masterpiece’ is a little problematic (overused and abused as you said), but what I always say to fix this is lets just make the ‘masterpiece’ landscape quite large. there is room for us (‘us’ being films) all. the ones we all consensus agree on are safe, the ones that don’t (early Cronenberg for example) have a wide consensus we can bitch and moan over and that’s the fun of it.

(for the record I count nearly ever Cronenberg as at least ‘great’, as many around here already know).

When you say “early Cronenberg”, how early do you mean? “Stereo” and “Crimes of the Future” are fantastic– they may be the best pure films he ever did. After that, I find his horror cinema a little hit or miss until “Scanners”. From that point, he found focus.

Never been able to get my hands on “Rabid” or “Shivers”, myself. “The Brood” is one I’ll have to try again sometime. Stephen King movies bore me to death, so I think “Dead Zone” is a lost cause.

I can’t overstate how much I love “Stereo” and “Crimes”, however. I put those on the same pedestal for artsy, minimalist sci-fi that I reserve for “THX 1138”. And coming from me, that’s like calling it a lost book of the New Testament. They’re holy sacraments of cinema.

Kaleem, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I like how you’ve put it, with films that really make the waves in world cinema– cultural drivers. “The Godfather” films are certainly one, and I think the “Star Wars” films are just as unquestionable, though you can debate their actual quality ’till you’re blue in the face. And it’s probably true, Scorsese, Malick and even Spielberg aren’t really “drivers of popular culture” in the same way that Coppola and Lucas are, though talented they most certainly are.

You’ve drawn a really well articulated line in the sand here, Kaleem. I’m going to remember that term.

I don’t think Lynch is “a driver of popular culture” either, at least when it comes to movies, which is why I almost questioned your inclusion of him in the “most influential” pack. He kind of walks alone – even more so than other inimitable stylists like Godard (whose overrated jump cuts, along with some worthier stylistic devices, DID have a huge influence on mainstream cinema, for whatever that’s worth). To the extent that Lynch has had a discernible impact on popular culture I would say “Twin Peaks” is the primary carrier of that impact, and that it’s been felt almost exclusively on TV – but quite emphatically so.

Yeah, as much as I like Lynch, he falls into the same category of Malick and Scorsese– influential among filmmakers, but not quite among audiences. There’s a kind of alchemy at work with the directors who can affect their peers and filmgoers alike, and the only ones in recent memory who’ve made lasting works here are Coppola and Lucas. Godard, certainly, for stylistic approaches, but was he ever really known enough outside of Europe to win over audiences? Not really. The same goes for other international and art-house filmmakers– Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini– all of them changed the way people made films, but none of them really changed the way anybody saw them.

The “Star Wars” and “Godfather” series forced everyone to course-correct, and it’s hard to think of any other films of recent history that have had as big an effect. “Pulp Fiction”? Perhaps, but mostly it made the biggest splash in a movement that others had already started. Oddly enough, “Akira” might be the next big cultural driver– it sure as hell put anime on the international map.

i’m not a huge howard hawkes or john ford fan, though i don’t dismiss there importance at all. i also consider hitchcock and kubrick british (not sure they make the list anyways).

i didn’t consider charlie chaplin or (my personal favorite) buster keaton. not really sure why… all the modernity we are discussing i’m sure is the reason.

as far as lucas directing career goes, i’d take a walter hill, john huston, tarantino, heck even neil labute’s first three films over lucas. i’d watch stuart gordon’s next horrorfest over lucas. Alexander Payne, Spike Lee, Abel Ferrara, the Wachowskis, Hal Ashby, ect…

basically i could name about 30 american filmmakers (at least) i’d take over lucas. lucas has made one great masterpiece, so has Haskell Wexler (and I like Wexler’s better).

I’m also curious why when discussing Scorsese no one ever mentions ‘Life Lessons’ (from ‘the New York Stories’ film) it’s 60 minutes (so I consider it a feature) and terrific. I put it in the top 4 of my ’80’s list. I think it’s the greatest thing Scorsese has ever done. thoughts? I also think it shows the act of painting better then any film I’ve yet seen (and I think I’ve seen all the ‘painter’ type films).

Interesting many of you guys don’t think ‘Munich’ is Spielberg’s masterpiece, or (in some cases) even a good to great film. curious.

Whatever, Jamie. I can’t stand at least half a dozen of the directors you list there anyway, so it’s all down to the same personal taste crapshoot, anyway. It’s functionally impossible to be objective about these things, so I just prefer to be upfront with my bias. Honesty is the only policy I can even understand, nowadays.

Bob, I think that’s what I’m arguing for too. there is absolutely no objectivity in any of this (and we shouldn’t seek any). if you said ‘lucas is great’ and i said ‘no he isn’t’ and you buckled, that would be no good. you and I arguing if lucas has any value is one of the joys of all this. it IS one big ‘taste crapshoot’, and in that another art form develops that we nurture: criticism.

and as far as bias go, i think i’ve shown quite often where mine are, and you are honest (as you said). so that’s great.

1. Malick: “Badlands” is a strong film, but a little airy. “Days of Heaven” is essential viewing. “The Thin Red Line” and “The New World”? Not so much. He’s a reputation, but not entirely deserving of it.

2. Allen: After his early, disposable comedies, he’s made a handful of essentials– “Annie Hall”, “Manhattan”, maybe “Hannah and Her Sisters”. And while many of the films he’s made between those are quality products, none of them really make a lasting impression. And frankly, he’s probably the least visually ambitious director who ever lived– aside from his movies with Gordon Willis, they’re uniformally point-and-shoot affairs. They might as well be plays.

3. Scorsese: No objection here. His recent stuff is a little dodgy, but still strong. I’m sure he’s got a classic or two left in him.

4. Ray: Great director, a favorite of mine, but I can’t help feeling that he’d be largely forgotten if it weren’t for how much Godard worshipped him. (See also: Sam Fuller)

5. Lynch: A true American master. Even “Inland Empire” outshines most quality films. No question about this choice.

6. Wilder: The most even-handed of the classic Hollywood directors. “Sunset Blvd.” is without argument one of the greatest things ever. I’m not so crazy about the rest of his work, especially his comedies. After “The Apartment” he definitely ran out of steam.

7. P.T. Anderson: No. Absolutely not. He’s made one great film, preceeded by a decade and a half of work that ranges from passable to complete crap. His future is bright, but his past is nothing but raining frogs and boogie nights. No thank you.

8. Jarmusch: Sorry, but I can’t stand any of his films. And I’ve tried, believe me, I’ve tried. I can force myself to watch the first segment from “Mystery Train” only because I think the Japanese girl in the leather jacket is cute. Other than that, this is one director whose wavelength never has and never will match my own.

9. Altman: For the most part, I find Altman unwatchable. I don’t enjoy his overpopulated crowd scenes, the characters who talk over one another, the altogether rough and improvised approach he brings, the disastrous lack of discipline he encourages in actors. It’s like watching a theater-clique orgy. Only three of his works stand out for me– “Secret Honor”, “Tanner ’88” and “Short Cuts”, and each of those is anchored by his efforts to collaborate with another lone person: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Garry Trudeau and Raymond Carver. Other than that, he just ain’t my thing.

10. Coppola: Here’s a sure-fire no-brainer, make no mistake. Obviously, his work has been a uneven, to say the least, since “Apocalypse Now”, but he’s still a solid talent with a lot of vim and vinegar left in him.

11. Kazan: Gotta admit, I’ve only seen “Streetcar”, “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” and “Waterfront”, and only the last one stands out for me as a major effort from the director himself. The others have Tennesee Williams and Betty Smith to thank, but that’s just part and parcell with cinematic adaptations. Maybe Kazan effectively ended his own career with his performance before the HUAC by making enemies of all sane, moral individuals left in Hollywood, but the quality of these three films aside, I don’t find all that much to celebrate about Kazan as a director.

12. The Coens: Hey, I like the Coen Brothers, too. Their movies are cute, smart and funny– especially the ones that are supposed to be serious. But I’d never even dream of putting them alongside the directors you’ve listed here. Of course, I’d never hand them a truckload of Oscars, either, but that’s life. I will say that they’ve shown more talent over the course of their entire career than P.T. Anderson, but that his one good film more or less outshines their entire lifetimes’ output. Sorry, but they’re minor comedians. It should be pretty easy to get rid of them. Pretty easy.

13. Welles: Ironically, perhaps the most underrated director who ever lived. I love “The Trial”. Perhaps the best literary adaptation ever made, and the only one of Kafka I’ve ever seen.

14. Fuller: I don’t know, man. Influential, yes, but not all of his movies are a hundred percent watchable for me. Frankly, he was endlessly more entertaining as a personality than as a filmmaker, himself. I’d rather watch a documentary about him than actually sit through one of his films. That’s the God’s honest truth.

15. Carpenter: One or two of his movies (“Halloween”, “Escape From New York”) were influential. Another one or two (“The Thing”, “They Live”) might’ve actually been good, even. But c’mon– “Starman”? “Memoirs of an Invisible Man”? That “Village of the Damned” remake? Those don’t even qualify as B-movies. Perhaps the most lasting and positive influence he’s had was to inspire the “Metal Gear” video games. I’ll take Hideo Kojima’s Snake over Kurt Russell’s any day.

16. De Palma: “The Untouchables” was okay, but then again, it was written by David Mamet. Other than that… De Palma’s just not my type. Sorry.

Important American directors I’d say you left off: Lumet, Cassavettes, Penn, Stone, maybe Gilliam, if he still qualifies as American. Definitely Michael Mann. Hell, I’d even reccomend Capra, just based on importance, if not necessarily for how I regard his propagandistic output. Payne’s films are more or less insufferable to me– I can only stand cynicism that smug and condescending for so long. Lee is an essential American director, though much of his work post-“Malcom X” is a little spotty. Fererra– if he’s your thing, man, whatever, although I don’t find that he has much of a voice outside of the directing he did on “Miami Vice”. The Wachowskis are undoubtedly the new mythmakers, but they’d better hurry up and make something substantial again or all we’re going to remember about them is that one might’ve gotten a sex-change. Ashby doesn’t impress me– you can play all the Yusef Islam records you want in the background, but “Harold and Maude” doesn’t pose any fancy for me.

At the end of the day, I can and will regard Lucas as equal to or superior to the filmmakers you’ve listed there. That’s my personal taste, which as I’ve said before is the only real critical barometer you can rely upon, when all else fails.

Jarmusch is the American Godard. I love a lot of his work but he is nonetheless a marginal director more or less. Unfortunately in questions of greatness some measure of ‘influence’ becomes a very important part of the mix. Do like many of the names on your list.

“Perhaps a case might be made that cinema manages to render problematic many notions of the theoretical.”

No, I think it’s more a case of most criticism being grounded more upon amateurism than scholarship. Which is not entirely a bad thing, by my lights, but it does have its drawbacks – among them that we use the same word in different ways.

For what it’s worth, I am not really using masterpiece in the perhaps more accurate sense which you denote: as a high point within an artist’s oeuvre (how could I be, when I suggest that certain directors do not even have a masterpiece?).

As for comparisons between masterpieces, yes to a certain extent it’s apples and oranges but my tastes are catholic and I love the idea of a Warhol and a Rembrandt existing side by side (well, aside from the fact that I’m not a huge fan of Warhol, but you get the idea). For more on this sensibility, I direct you to the 2001 thread (I think it was that one) where this was discussed in depth.

Also, I have to admit I fly by instinct. I try to temper this with reason and analysis, but still the core of my critical apparatus is not an abstraction but a sense.

“Also, I have to admit I fly by instinct. I try to temper this with reason and analysis, but still the core of my critical apparatus is not an abstraction but a sense.”

this is more or less what i’ve always said about art. it’s a ‘gut thing’. a painter story i’ve read talked about how good painters can put on roller skates and zip down a gallery and say ‘yes, yes, yes, no, no, no, yes, no…’ to the paintings if they are good or not… once an eye is developed its that quick.

my ‘gut’ and eye is different then everyone here. you guys just have to convince me that my guy was wrong once, or why I should have my glasses checked.

talking paintings makes it clearer though… if one likes Rauschenberg combines as much as I do, how can you ever think I’d like impressionism say? (I don’t but I can respect it) Same goes for Lucas, he does nothing for me, but I think he has lots of worth for film history, and don’t think less of anyone for liking him.

Now if someone said they liked Bret Ratner or something like that I may raise a brow (or two).

Good take on the Rauschenberg thing. I can honestly say that I can respect your choices, no matter how much I dislike them, just as you do for my appreciation of Lucas. In the words of Big O, “We have come to terms”.

As for Bret Ratner– I kinda dug “Prison Break”. Is that going too far?

Jamie, thanks for those comments. My point in comparing Rembrandt with Warhol was less to suggest the time factor involved (though you’re certainly right in that the entire history of cinema is perhaps ‘contemporary’ in certain ways.. having said that I do not know how many audiences would really perceive it that way.. for most it wouldn’t be easy to jump from Nosferatu to Gran Torino even if, and as you rightly allude to, cinematic history is more ‘compressed’ and therefore stylistic affinities run across the board) than the fact that a work might be a ‘masterpiece’ for what it does but not an ‘absolute’ one. In this sense I think any art form can really be compared. So take the written word. Homer is hailed as one of the very greatest (which already assumes that he can be compared with Philip Roth) when he operates at a distance of roughly three millennia from us. On the other hand we might also speak of a Dan Brown masterpiece! Because for what the latter does he produces a perfect book. It’s just that his framework isn’t as rich as Homer’s. Let’s take the example of music. The Beatles with say Revolver (or Abbey Road or Rubber Soul or of course Sgt Pepper’s) define the pinnacle of popular music for just about any listener. These are masterpieces. But then there are Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos, also masterpieces. No one one would want to compare the Beatles with Bach. Again the resources of musical ‘expressiveness’ that Bach brings to the table far exceed those that the Beatles do (again one shouldn’t bring in the democratic ‘urge’ with the arts.. millions worship the Beatles.. it takes though a greater immersion in the classical to worship Bach.. take Sam’s example here.. he has an enormous love for opera but he also has the kind of exposure to it most of us could only dream of.. what I mean again is that it just requires far greater investment by the listener in every sense of the word to truly appreciate Bach as opposed to the Beatles.. I say all of this to be very clear about where I’m coming from).

When we get to cinema however everything is confused. The nature of the medium provides only part of the answer. The equivalent of the Beatles in cinema are often judged as great as the equivalent of Bach. Of course there’s another side to the story here as well which is that often (and despite critics otherwise paying lip service to the notion of the cinematic ‘canonical’) the very ‘democratic’ nature of the enterprise oddly means that the true ‘auteurs’ of cinema in some ways actually do not get put up on pedestals as high as those reserved for Bach or Shakespeare or whoever. Because the democratic move on the one hand elevates a Howard Hawkes and somehow makes him the equal of the exceedingly richer Bergman but at the same time Bergman is never in too high a stratosphere to begin with. Again think of giants in other fields and it’s not easy to find comparisons done with markedly lesser talents.

And as I’ve said forever (this point is crucial) the frame of cinema is essentially ‘American’ which is to say that whatever the rules are an American ‘exception’ is always let in. Richard Schickel once said that he was basically an American cinema person and not really that interested in ‘foreign cinema’. This sounds appalling of course and meanwhile Schickel was quite happy to make his lists of great films! But this perversity is even possible because the language of cinema is ‘American’. Even the greatest auteurs in the world have been informed by Hollywood. This therefore creates a peculiar problematic. If an industry has been so hegemonic one should naturally account for it. At the same time in no other art form can questions of influence be so easily divorced from those of aesthetics. Yes an American imperium ensures the dominance of the Hollywood model. But consider that the history of British colonialism made Shakespeare supreme around the globe not John Webster! Hollywood however was never in the business of making purely artistic works. The industry has always been just too commercial for it. I believe it was Mamet who once said that there was no death greater for the artist than for the one in Hollywood. I paraphrase somewhat here. Hollywood has produced great classics but only occasionally great films that one could consider art in the truest sense of the word. On the other hand when we then get to other nations what is really imported for the most part is cinema relying on clear notions of art. Again the difference is the American hegemony. So all of this really complicates things but it seems to me that almost all critics are not even aware of this entire set of issues. It is true that sometimes a classic becomes so dominant that it becomes cultural artifact on its own. And we can then list such a film among great ones even if we deem is aesthetically inferior in other ways. But this doesn’t happen too often.

Wow, this is quite a conversation, one that has little to do with Akira after a certain point. As long as we’re talking about greatest living American directors, here’s my own list:

Woody Allen (of course)
Martin Scorsese (of course)
Todd Haynes (just consistently inventive)
Gus Van Sant (an uneven career b/c of his commercial work, but no less interesting for it)
Jim Jarmusch (with Dead Man and Down By Law as his masterpieces)
David Lynch (a true genius)
David Cronenberg (though his recent work has been spotty, he has too many great films not to be included)

In a slightly lower tier, either because they haven’t made enough films yet or haven’t made enough that really blow me away, I’d place: the Coens, both Andersons, David O. Russell, Aronofsky, David Gordon Green, Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry, Richard Kelly, Spike Lee, etc. Some of these directors may very well be elevated to the top rank with time, while others only do it for me sporadically.

Spielberg has never been especially important to me; he has some films I despise, some I enjoy, some I even really love, but nothing that for me marks him out as the cinematic great he is for so many others. At his best, he’s a wonderful entertainer.

Since Sam asked earlier, I consider INLAND EMPIRE an astonishing, baffling work of art. Approaching it as a narrative film is a terrible mistake, and probably led to many of the misunderstandings surrounding it — more than anything else Lynch has made, it is most definitely NOT a narrative film. It’s a free-associative collage of identities and stories, touching on themes of Hollywood moviemaking, the treatment of women in culture and commerce, spirituality, TV, and the connections and disconnects between different cultures. It’s a catalog of Lynchian ideas and obsessions, and its story, such as it is, increasingly ceases to matter as one story is fragmented into multiple contradictory ones. It’s a monumental film.

Well Ed, that was quite the definitive analysis of INLAND EMPIRE, and I thank you for that. Yes, approaching it narratively is a major blunder.
I am prepared to include Todd Haynes on the list, especially since FAR FROM HEAVEN is my favorite film of the new millenium. But I’M NOT THERE is slowly being considered a very great film, and what with SAFE and the Carpenter pic, well we have someone here who belongs in the upper etchelon. I also think Van Sant is very close to such a designation, as several of his works were among the very best of their release years. For some reason I am considering Cronenberg as Canadien, but I may be in error there. If he is on th etable, yes, he’s a serious contender.
The conversation on this thread has been sensational. After the marathon complicity of Movie Man (the human equivalent of the “city that never sleeps”) and the equally tireless Bob Clark, the conversation was intellectual bolstered by the absolutely brilliant Kaleem Hasan, the ever-astute Jamie, and then Ed, who needs no boost from me.
This is a thread for the ages. And to think AKIRA started it all.

Cameron I’d vouch for, long before Jewison. I just put his name up there because he fits the national profile, and he’s somewhat important. But frankly, his films do nothing for me. Cameron’s spotty and superficial in a lot of places, but I’ve enjoyed enough of his movies to give the man some props. I mean hey– he did co-write “Rambo: First Blood, Part II”. I’m sure everybody loves THAT movie, right?

another genre director with a touch for nostalgia ala Lucas, Ron Howard, and Spielberg is Joe Dante. And maybe even Bob Clark. I like many, many films by both of these guys though both have, or in Clark’s case ‘had’, lost a lot of steam here at the end of there careers.

Bob, I am looking over your comments on my list of American directors and I can’t help but feel you are dismissing some real talents just to elevate Lucas. I understand you enjoy Lucas, but as I said with the pantheon it should be large enough to fit all these guys, then at that point we just need to argue back and forth for the sake of arguing and the enjoyment it brings and potential unseen riches it opens for some of us.

Take for example this particularly dismissive response: “11. Kazan: Gotta admit, I’ve only seen “Streetcar”, “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” and “Waterfront”, and only the last one stands out for me as a major effort from the director himself. The others have Tennesee Williams and Betty Smith to thank, but that’s just part and parcell with cinematic adaptations. Maybe Kazan effectively ended his own career with his performance before the HUAC by making enemies of all sane, moral individuals left in Hollywood, but the quality of these three films aside, I don’t find all that much to celebrate about Kazan as a director.”

So he’s not worth much, but you’ve only seen three of his films. Whereas my favorite films of his are (in order) ‘A Face in the Crowd’, ‘The Last Tycoon’, then ‘The Arrangement’. From there I’d go probably ‘A Tree Grows in Brooklyn’, ‘On the Waterfront’, or ‘Wild River’ in a dead heat. Then ‘Splendor in the Grass’ and ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’. A real shame he’s been written off, when so many of his riches appear to have gone unseen…

From there more quick dismisses abound (the Malick and Woody Allen reviews in particular), some of this IS a taste issue, but some of it is also a case of pulling someone (very deserving) under to elevate Lucas to a place you think he deserves to be.

It really has nothing to do with Lucas, believe me. Malick’s done two near-perfect movies, but to be perfectly honest, the last two films he did after his multi-decade absence don’t even come close to standing up. And I like Allen, but again, I really think he only has a handful of genuine classics, while the rest are just kinda there. Granted, this is what happens when you adopt a habit of directing at least one film per year on average, but still, I wouldn’t put him up there with the greatest directors of all time, especially considering how pedestrian his visual style is. Now, I might put him higher as a writer, but that’s a horse of a different color.

And Kazan– as I said, I’ve only seen three of his films, so I really can’t judge, and I thought I made that clear. I just wanted to be honest on how I felt about the three that I have seen– good, quality films, but he’s by no means the first person I’d think of praising for them. I’ll check out the ones you’ve listed for a fuller understanding of Kazan’s contributions, though. As I said, I only have an incomplete look at him.

Again, my opinions on those filmmakers have absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of Lucas. Just so we’re clear, here.

Jewison was the Ron Howard of his day, Master of Mediocrities. When In the Heat of the Night is your best film, it says it all. Fiddler on the Roof was elephantine, The Cincinnati Kid completely ruined when it should have been Peckinpah, the rest not even worth mentioning. The Academy loves him as they love mediocrities.

Bob, I’ll have to disagree with your ratings on many directors, but I won’t elaborate further and gives clues as to future poll placements. But I can safely say this – George Lucas couldn’t direct traffic. American Graffiti was no better than several Cameron Crowe autobiographical pieces. THX1138 was visually intriguing but stolid, like Kubrick sans talent. Star Wars was a milestone in its reprehensible way, but Empire Strikes Back was better because it had a mere journeyman like Irvin Kershner direct it, which is better than someone who couldn’t direct at all. As for the prequels, they could all have their negatives burned and the world would be no worse off.

Lucas’ one contribution was ILM, the technology, for that’s all he is, a Professor Rotwang for the late 20th century looking for his next toy with no bloody clue what sort of worthwhile project he could use it for.

“Bob, I’ll have to disagree with your ratings on many directors, but I won’t elaborate further and gives clues as to future poll placements. But I can safely say this – George Lucas couldn’t direct traffic.”

Funny, considering how much he loves cars, I’d say he’s probably the one man on earth born to do just that.

Needless to say I disagree with everything you say up there. “Graffiti” is minor, to be sure, but a helluva lot smarter than people give it credit for. “THX” is 90 minutes of perfect to me, a movie in a league of its own to me– stronger than Kubrick’s vaccum chamber-music sci-fi, equal to Godard’s “Alphaville”, second only to Tarkovsky’s otherworldly “Solaris” and “Stalker”, if second to anything at all. Frankly, the “Star Wars” movies (even the prequels) have just as much substance as Tolkien’s Arthur-by-way-of-Wagner mythology, and stands as one of the most engaging post-modern film experiments. Kershner, to me, is nothing more than an overcredited Christian Nyby.

Professor Rotwang? Let’s be fair, and call him a Doctor Mabuse. Not all of his master plans have succeeded in full, but he is still very much a mastermind. As for the other directors on your list– I can only look forward to disagreeing with you, no doubt…

Oh definitely, but if you see anything by Lucas as perfect I think you’re beyond help. It’s like comparing the potato painting of a 3 year old top Caravaggio or a Hershey bar to a roast dinner.

Call me old fashioned, I like directors and films with substance. No Lucas film – not only those he directed but any of the Indy films either – ever had any. He’s the prototype of why modern commercial cinema is all crash bang wallop and no depth. Star Wars effectively was the final nail in the coffin of an intelligent mainstream American cinema, where they went purely for blockbusters and left making quality to the independents and, better still, movies from other countries.

Again, Allan, I find his work much more original, promising and rewarding than Peter Jackson, for example, among other fantacists who followed in his footsteps while recieving far greater accolades. I honestly find more substance in any given “Star Wars” film than all three “Lord of the Rings” flicks or the miserable “King Kong” remake.

And for the record, I’ve never said that anything by Lucas was perfect, just that his strengths far outweigh his faults, in my opinion. Obviously, our definitions of substance are of different mettle, and there’s no cause for alarm in that.

Finally, on a side note– can we please stop touting the fabled glory years of Hollywood cinema in the 70’s? All I see in that decade, aside from a few genuine quality features, was a steady commodification of the independent movement with shlocky sentimental garbage filtered through a watered-down auteurist grit. What was “Midnight Cowboy” but a more explicit, homoerotic version of a three-hanky tearjerker? What was “The French Connection” but an edgier, more openly corrupt episode of “Dragnet”? The so-called maverick films of the 70’s could be a hell of a lot more conservative than people are prone to recognize, and when you get right down to it, high-concept fare like “Jaws” and “Star Wars” was probably some of the most radical filmmaking to ever rise through the studio system back then. Their success might’ve shut the door for anyone else of their calibre, channeling such talent back into independent alleys and poverty rows of their day, but that doesn’t diminish them a bit.

America has never stopped making great films, especially past the so-called halcyon days of the “Me Decade”. It’s just that once the 80’s rolled in, directors wised up and started veering away from Hollywood to fund their passion projects, which was never a very smart idea to begin with, anyway.

Yes, but she never accounted for or admitted hers. On the scale of which her work was projected, it amounts to a wholesale hipocrisy that truly gets under my skin. All too often, I find her writing is more about showing off her wordsmanship, rather than fairly judging cinematic work. I have no use for her.

Jamie, I am a massive reader of film criticism and I like both Rosenbaum and Sontag a lot. As I do Kauffmann, Sarris, Lopate, MacDonald, Simon and others. Kael and Kauffmann are my two favorites, but i often use the others when I am looking for “leverage!”

I bring in Kael for one reason. She is one of the greatest critics who ever lived, regardless of whether I agree with her only 50% of the time. I am not so egotistical and smug as to one use my own opinion to counter a contrary opinion. i respect great film criticism and people like Kael who always (agree or not) greatly enrich out experience. If Kael says FIDDLER ON THEROOF is the greatest film musical of all time, well then we must at least take notice. But you won’t, because you don’t agree. I don’t play that game, regardless of how often I agree or disagree. I feel the same way about Kauffmann and a few others.

Considering that critics only really make for a more highly publicized opinion, I rarely see how even somebody like Kael truly provides any more perspective or intellectual clout than anybody else of equal enthusiasim or articulation. Sorry, I just have no use for the kind of elitism she represents.

An astonishing discussion. Sorry I didn’t get a chance to see it earlier. George Lucas is hardly a director of prominence. I respect Star Wars and its first sequel, but the rest of his anon is hum drum. if anything, he is the perfect example of what went wrong with American cinema. He’s the John Grisham of the movie theatres, the Barry Manilow of pop music. No substance.

No, he isn’t. If anyone’s the Grisham of cinema, it’s Spielberg, without a doubt. Lucas, on the other hand– let’s be fair. He’s the Ian Flemming of cinema– at worst, the Tom Clancy. Or, if comic-books make more sense as a metaphor, the Stan Lee. The Jim Steranko. Granted, perhaps I should be going for a sci-fi angle with Phillip K. Dick or William Gibson, but bringing cyberpunk into the discussion would just make things confusing.

I’m not so sure about that. Dick was far too crawled up inside his own skull to even tell what kind of reality he was living in. His ideas were incredible, but his actual prose could be pretty attrocious. His work is ripe for adaptations, if not exactly for reading.

And I love William Gibson’s work, but let’s remember– he also gave us “Johnny Mnemonic”.

Yes, Lucas above Spielberg. I can criticise Spielberg as much as the next man, especially Saving Private Ryan, the most overrated film of the entire 1990s (the Letters of Iwo Jima of its decade), but he at least has an artist’s vision, if often employed on unworthy canvases. His masters were Kubrick and Lean. One cannot help but think that Lucas’ masters were Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla.

One hates to be hard on Lucas the man as he seems a very genuine, generous and approachable fellow in interviews. Far more say than Coppola, who will always be in my bad books for his shocking nepotist handling of Napoleon – his father’s score more important than Gance’s masterpiece in his eyes – but he still made four great films. It’s easy to differentiate the man from his work. With Lucas it’s the other way round.

Now if Lucas had had the nerve to ask Spielberg to direct Phantom Menace and perhaps let him do all three, we may not have had definition of anticlimactic (artistically and literally) trilogy we had foisted on us.

Allan, I’m glad Spielberg was never allowed to direct a “Star Wars” film. His over-indulgent manner might fit the Bond series, however. I’m at times more impressed by the sheer oddities of the prequel trilogy than anything else he’s been party to, but I’ll be the first to admit that everything from “Phantom Menace” onward is an acquired taste, if viewed for anything but simple fun. I’ll take Lucas’ flawed inventiveness over Spielberg’s spotless mediocrity any day.

Jamie– you know my feelings on “Phantom Menace”. “Willow”, in my opinion, is a damn good flick. Lucas wasn’t directly responsible for “Howard”, though– he did his old “American Graffiti” writing partners a favor by financing it, so let’s not blame him for being kind to his friends. If you wanted a third example, you should’ve picked “Radioland Murders”, which probably would’ve been fairly decent if it’d been done in the 80’s with Steve Martin, as originally planned.

Yes, I must admit I find it hilarious that Dick could be criticised for his prose as if Lucas’ writing was on a par with H.G.Wells. This from the man whose trilogy climax had that classic piece of repartée…YOU WILL GIVE IN TO THE DARK SIDE – YOU WILL…NEVER…YOU WILL…or words to that effect.

It’s the sort of script that might have made Groucho declare “a four year old child could read this script – ASIDE – run outside and get me a four year old child, I can’t read this shit!”

Correction– fourth example. “Crystal Skull” would’ve been great if it weren’t for what’s-her-name from “Raiders” and what’s-his-name from the goddamn “Transformers” movies making for the usual Spielberg family bullshit. Plus, it would’ve been better off filmed back in the 90’s, when Lucas originally pitched the idea of Indiana Jones and aliens. At least then, it could’ve taken place at the same time as the Roswell, New Mexico occurance…

Allan, I’ve never said Lucas is a great writer. As a storyteller, he’s imaginative. As a director, he’s visionary. As a scriptwriter, he’s rather clueless. His best works all had collaborators working with him, and I’ll admit he should’ve tried harder to find co-writers for his most recent films.

As for Dick– have you ever read his stuff? Honestly, a good deal of his writing makes very little sense, as he doesn’t always follow standard stylistic rules or formats. Lucas sure ain’t the most eloquent guy on the planet, but at least he’s coherent.

Allen that’s the whole question mark I have about this whole discussion.

Bob you are certainly entitled to your opinion but (as Allan points out) to criticize Dick’s prose and look past the drivel the characters are saying in ALL the prequels is just to much.

then to call say ‘Thin Red Line’ and ‘A New World’ as nonessential viewing (and even ‘Badlands’ as ‘a little airy’– btw I consider ‘Badlands’ just about a perfect film), and Malick as simply a ‘reputation, but not entirely deserving of it’, just makes me scratch my head. I’m speechless. If Malick is a ‘reputation not deserving of it’, where does a man like Lucas fit with all his ‘Whoopees!’ during the podrace scene? I mean it’s embarrassing to compare these two. One guy is translating Heidegger (literally; look it up) and the other is a man child slave driver over a bunch of CGI artists in a warehouse creating the next Jar Jar Binks.

I’m sorry, Bob, but Lucas and the term “visionary director” not only don’t belong in the same sentence, but not in the same paragraph, on the same page, of the same book, hell even in the same language. He never could direct, the prequels just confirmed what we knew all along…he’s best left alone to make scientific advancements in film effects. He should be a designer of theme park rides, not a film director.

For visionaries, look to Ford, to Welles, to Hawks, to Kubrick, to Von Stroheim, Von Sternberg, and any one of several hundred others before Lucas. Star Wars is only seen as a masterpiece by people who saw Star Wars when they were under 12 when it first came out and have been following J.M.Barrie’s ethos ever since, to the extent that, if Lucas were the pinnacle of cinematic ambition anytime in the future then I’d want to discover what Barrie referred to as an awfully big adventure. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.

Allen, again, you’re putting words in my mouth. Go ahead and quote Dante all you like, but the fact remains that Lucas is a visionary, even if he’ll never represent the pinnacle of cinematic ambition. I’ll give you Kubrick, and for the sake of posterity Ford (though frankly, I don’t give a damn about his actual films, most of the time). I’ll even raise you Fritz Lang, perhaps my single favorite director, in terms of sheer output. Von Stroheim and Von Sternberg don’t impress me, but they are what they are.

Jamie– at long last, I’ll say it. Terrence Malick is overrated. I don’t care how “perfect” his first two films are– they are acquired tastes, plain and simple, and I wouldn’t think less of anyone for taking a while to warm to them. I don’t care what he’s been translating in the meantime, or what he was doing off in Europe for the better part of two decades, but anyone who takes that long to follow up their sophomore effort must be regarded as creatively suspicious, to say the least. And frankly, his move from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 was the biggest mistake he ever made. He’s a master of the smaller aspect ratio, but I was personally underwhelmed by his use of the wider scope.

Sorry, but he’s just not on my list, and I think he’s been given far too many excuses by enthusiasts for far too long. If I want something close to his brand of cinema, I’ll watch a film by Michael Cimino. He probably represents the best of both worlds.

Every response digs your hole further to the extent we’ll need a magnetometer to rescue you soon, Bob. Praising Lucas and dissing Ford, Von Stroheim and Von Sternberg. It’s like insisting that Dr Seuss is a visionary but Shakespeare and Sophocles are just worthless. Jeez! I’m calling it in, enough. Continuing with this is like what a critic said about Hurry Sundown, “criticising it is like tripping a dwarf!”

I feel like Blackadder trying to teach Baldrick to count…

BLACKADDER: Right Baldrick, let’s try again. This is called adding. If I have two beans and then I add two more beans, what do I have?

BALDRICK: Some beans.

BLACKADDER: Yes…and no. Let’s try again, shall we? I have two beans, then I add two more beans what does that make?

BALDRICK: A very small casserole.

BLACKADDER: Baldrick, the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this. Now, try again. One, two, three, four! So how many are there?

BALDRICK: Three

BLACKADDER: What.

BALDRICK: (Pointing to one) And that one.

BLACKADDER: (Picking it up) Three and that one. So if I add that one to the three what will I have?

BALDRICK: Ah! Some beans.

BLACKADDER: Yes. To you Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn’t it?

And my kids do love Geisel, even if my children’s literature professor at Jersey City State University once said he was a horrible illustrator, who drew “ugly” pictures and insulted teh intelligence of his readers. Boy how wrong she was.

Geisel was, by the way, something of an underrated talent in films, too. Has anyone else here ever seen “The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T”? It was done in 1953, before the bulk of his most famous children’s books, and it’s quite possibly the single most insane thing I’ve ever seen commited to film. Very much a Dr. Seuss world come to life, with gigantic pianos, roller-skating twins who share a beard, and tongue-tying songs about dictatorial music teachers and torture chambers that include perfume departments.

His real legacy is in illustrated books and children’s literacy projects, but think of him also as the Charles Laughton of kid’s films. Easily one of the craziest things to come out of the 50’s.

Addendum to the Gibson argument– the sad thing is, I actually like “Johnny Mnemonic”. Not in the same way that I like Lucas’ stuff, granted. It’s a noble attempt to put Gibson’s tech-noir world onto the big screen. It fails miserably, of course, but it’s still full of a lot of the writer’s trademark wit. It’s a decent debut film from Robert Longo– a guy who’s probably most famous as the painter of the “Men in the City” paintings hanging in Patrick Bateman’s apartment from “American Psycho”. Gibson’s script stretches out the original short story, and while there’s some cool flourishes here and there– the psychotic Yakuza bosses and henchmen, Udo Kier’s slimy futuristic fence, even Keanu Reeve’s infamous “Room Service” speech– most of it’s a bloated mess that falls flat on its face, dead on arrival.

Some of it is crucial elements from the story that are lost in translation– the classic Sprawl setting, the iconic Molly Millions character substituted with a direct-to-video calibre hackjob– and others are just sort of clueless in their cyberpunk indulgences. A super-smart shark in a tank? Ice-T as a revlutionary vanguard? Newark? Still, I’m glad they tried, and it’ll just have to do until somebody gets “Neuromancer” off the ground.

Bob, when you are writing in a medium consigned to a ghetto in payment and prestige, where keeping the lights on is of supreme importance, flamboyance in prose style for style’s sake would be foolish. In his finest stories and novels, prose style and ideas are perfectly married. And he wasn’t the only one. Bradbury and Sheckley, Bester and Kornbluth are in the same league.

All of their works are ripe for adaption, if only the dumbing down for a mass market didn’t dilute them.

It’s a really artistic tragedy that Lucas (and Spielberg with his ‘Amazing Stories’) has never adapted speculative fiction apart from the inspiration derived via Burroughs’ John Carter. Which tantalisingly is being adapted by Pixar. Now, that’s that’s where I’d put my money on for a real artistic and commercial treat.

Man, Allan has really been ON in this thread. Hilarious and dead right. I always loved the Star Wars films as a kid, but watched as an adult, do they seem like the work of a “visionary” cinematic genius? Um, no, to say the least. And the prequels proceed to shit all over everything that made the original films so charming and entertaining in the first place, further dispersing whatever good will Lucas may have amassed in his career. He’s a commercial hack more interested in merchandising than filmmaking.

Dr. Seuss, incidentally, was much more of an artist than Lucas will ever be. His children’s books were OK, but he also wrote and drew a lovely, visually imaginative newspaper comic strip called Hejji.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say that about Dr. Seuss over Lucas, but it’s a fair comparison. They’ve both had just as much to do with modern childhood experiences as the other. I especially like his collaborations with Chuck Jones, even in the case of war-films and propaganda works like the “Private Snafu” shorts. Still, I’ll always have a slightly bitter taste in my mouth with him thanks to his portrayal of the Japanese in his cartoons for PM magazine. The man was not always as englightened as Horton or the Lorax…

Well Bob, I’m personally not a fan of JOHNNY MNEMONIC and it seems to me that Gibson doesn’t translate well to film. The pacing is awkward for one, and it didn’t do a convincing job with establishing atmosphere. This is a case where teh written word is more reliable that the cinematic visualization. I’m think this is what will happen with THE ROAD, base don Cormac McCarthy.

It probably doesn’t, especially the Sprawl books, pertaining so heavily, as they do, on each individual’s personal, subjective experiences in cyberspace. What sets Gibson apart is that he lets you feel his worlds, instead of just seeing them, which makes him a difficult prospect for taking into a medium defined by sights.

Ironically, Gibson’s whole cyberpunk narrative style was inspired by “Blade Runner”– Ridley Scott’s effervescent vision of Phillip K. Dick’s literature, and oddly enough a vision praised by the author as more-or-less exactly what was in his head, based on the rough-cut he saw before his death. Why then, is Gibson’s work so difficult to translate for the screen, when it leans so heavily on the cinematic adaptation of another author’s work?

There are two contrary statements about PDK’s view about ‘Blade Runner’, one seems to have been enthused by the sheer visual design splendour, the other critical of the hack threadbare adaption that only followed Dick’s novel on the most superfical level.

And by Gibson’s own account, he was as much influenced by Alfred Bester as anyone.

“Mnemonic” is also something of a personal thing of mine. It introduced me to Gibson, literary sci-fi and more modernist fiction in general. His style is miles apart from the hard, humorless tone of Wells or Asimov, far closer to guys like Roth or DeLillo than anything else. Plus, when I was young I dug the idea of a guy who had to download something in his brain or else his head would explode. Or whatever’s happening in the movie. That being said, it’s a guilty pleasure, nothing more. Too bad– I would’ve liked to see Longo try his hand again.

A corallary consideration– some literary pieces are obviously difficult to translate to film, going as they do from a medium built upon the subjectivity of the written word to the implied objectivity of the camera’s lens. As a game designer, I wonder if the subjectivity of a player’s unique, individual experience while immersed in a game would make a better fit for adaptations of certain books and stories. Gibson doesn’t really work too well in film, but in games, perhaps?

This thread has gone on to ridiculous lengths. There, I said it. Does Mr. Clark ever give up? Man, I think this guy must has been blogging here for 24 exhaustive hours. While I have, in my opinion, no problems with anyone chiming in, I have to wonder why this fine gentleman keeps beating the perverbial dead horse. Yes, Clark is entitled to his own opinion, but when the subject takes turns to other directions is it fair that he keep rebounding it back to the core that has already been covered? I have to admit, I was having fun and finding this thread fascinating for a while. But, now, I’m just totally turned off by it and tired of the whole thing. Can’t we let this thing flow without revertberation on this foolish Lucas issue? 9 out of 10 here have crushed this director. Can we let the dead rest?

And, as I predicted to Sam, Allan was a highlite on a blog-roll that was just getting annoying. The line about comparing Dr. Seuss to Shakespeare and Sophocles was so balls-to-the-floor hysterical I nearly wet my pants. I didn’t dare say a word at that point knowing Allan had full well started lining up the grenades to be lobbed. The only reason I came back to this thread was to see what our illustrious head writer was gonna come up with next. Will say this for Clark though, you stood tall to Allan. I have seen bigger men fall to his tongue-lashings. Although I personally think Allan is absolutely correct, as well as many points thrown in by Jamie-MovieMan-Sam and others-you gotta give credit to Clark for at least convincing himself he was definatively right. Most people give up after EVERYONE chastises them. I don’t know if Clark is gutsy or just plain nuts. I’ll go with a little gutsy and a lot of nuts.

Wow! A full fifteen minutes of commenting and not one retaliation from Clark? You think he finally went to sleep or did the guys in the white jackets with the butterfly nets take him to the rubber room for lawn chair painting classes? LOL!!! I fear he’s resting up to start another tirade tomorrow. I pray Allan reviews something Clark has NOT seen so we can keep Lucas out of it.

You’re too harsh, dennis. To give Bob his due, he’s avoided tirades to an astonishing degree. I may disagree with a lot of what he said, but as you acknowledged previously, he stood up to some exasperated responses, and as I just noted, he did so with good humor. I for one tip my hat in his direction even if I think he’s dead wrong about Spielberg and way overvalues Lucas.

Some thoughts which occur to me while scrolling through this ridiculously long thread. (I kind of thought it was playing itself out when I last checked in, but boy was I wrong!):

1. Jamie – You raise an interesting point. I was going to challenge your assertions about Spielberg and Ford, and the craziness of working in an “outdated” form but I realized you were actually making the same point. I.e., it does work on film though not so much in painting (don’t know if I agree there, but that’s a separate argument – suffice it to say I think the arts have been highly compromised by the postmodern idea that one has to work in the vernacular of the times, which today means so much self-consciousness the effort often collapses onto itself).
2. Bob – “aside from his movies with Gordon Willis, they’re uniformally point-and-shoot affairs.” Yikes! That’s like saying, aside from Pollack’s drip paintings, he doesn’t have much to offer. Ok, I know the career analogy is not exact – Pollack worked his way up to that style, while Allen has apparently worked his way down – but I think you judge an artist by his best work, and the fact that he directed some of the best-looking movies of all time can’t be overlooked, even if it is Willis whose largely responsible for that (after all, Allen hired him and approved and collaborated on the style to a certain extent – otherwise we’d have a jarring contrast of form and content.) Also, I think you’re wrong. To mention just one counterexample, Allen’s work with Sven Nykvist, who was probably incapable of a “point-and-shoot” approach to filmmaking, is quite excellent as well.
3. Jamie – “once an eye is developed its that quick.” The first part of that statement is crucial, I think, and is why I sometimes hesitate or cringe at statements that there’s no objectivity at all in value judgements of arts. But there is a great deal of wiggle room, for sure.
4. Kaleem – I’m not sure about your Beatles point. I think if we allow the Holllywood auteurs their place in the film pantheon, we can allow rock musicians their place in the musical one. Granted, it’s quite like comparing a Rembrandt to a Warhol – but I can accept that, with the idea that we’re looking at the overall effect, and whether it’s achieved in terms of richness or something more spontaneous is not the central question.
5. Bob & Allan – Interesting here. Like many others, I find Bob’s veneration of Lucas a little hard to take, even as I respect Bob’s game defenses of the director, and personally love Star Wars. But I kind of sympathize with Allan’s always caustic takedowns – especially with Bob’s dismissal of Spielberg, I just don’t see how anyone can find his work mediocre. That said, boy do I like hearing Bob take the piss out of Peter Jackson, one of the most overrated filmmakers of our time. And for all Lucas’ drawbacks I think his vision, at least circa ’77, is a million times more fresh and original and fun – and, hey, cinematically sophisticated – than Jackson’s. Certainly in terms of editing it’s no contest; like, to elaborate on Allan’s analogy, comparing the press-the-red-button home videos of a dad filming his kids to the sophisticated montage of an actual editor.
6. Bob – I disagree with you on the 70s. Sure, we can pick and choose favorites or, as you do, un-favorites. But when looked at holistically, the decade produced far more bona fide American classics than just about any other post-50s decade. I still think you are too focused on content – films provide a lot more than just the story they tell, and the 70s was stylistically a richer decade than the 80s.
7. Everyone – Pauline Kael was a goddess. And I say that disagreeing with many of her opinions. At any rate, all critical perspectives are equal but some are more equal than others.
8. Yeah, I like Dr. Suess too though I wouldn’t have had Allan phrase his rhetorical bombast any differently.
9. Some of Bob’s arguments drove me nuts – and not 1/10th as much as they drove other people on this thread nuts – but we all have to give him credit, not just for standing his ground, but for doing so patiently and humorously. It was fun…I mean, jeez, we’re even approaching “Return of the King” territory here, though the conversation was a little more evenly spaced out (and hence less exhausting).

MovieMan, yes precisely my point! If many Hollywood directors can be allowed so should the Beatles!

Now having said all of this I should add this — I do not believe the cinematic medium has so far seen a truly titanic talent. In other words someone to place alongside a Shakespeare or a Homer or a Tolstoy or a Bach or a Beethoven or a Raphael and so forth. If I were in the business of prognostication (I quite often am actually) I would also suggest that the cinema is unlikely to. Because what is cinema’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness — it is the most democratic art form in many ways and it can almost hardly ever be simply about the artistic urge. In another sense there is simply too much ‘commerce’ that’s part of the enterprise. By definition. I don’t believe you get Mozart that way!

Incidentally it is the youngest art form and might end up being the most short-lived as well. It is besieged by newer technologies all the time and even within the medium the most authentic experience of cinema is for most people (including most of us) a thing of the past. It’s about watching films on TV and DVD and whatever and now we have the latest violence inflicted on the medium by way of youtube and if one didn’t consider this reduction enough there’s the iPod. I know of people who keep Seven Samurai on their iPods. Hope I don’t run into them. Might find it hard to evade the law in the aftermath.

I certainly draw the line at the iPod, but I find You Tube (or other online video platforms to be useful) – it allows you to draw up immediately a moment from a film, to play with & pay tribute to great movies – something I intend to do more of when I return to work on my blog. I’ve already posted every Astaire-Rogers number on my blog – no, of course it’s not as good as watching them on TV and that’s not as good as watching them on the big screen – but it’s pretty much impossible to experience this type of thing in any other medium other than the Internet.

It should not be treated as an equivalent to the DVD, let alone the theatrical, experience but I think it can be a great tool.

Okay. Where to begin. You can tell a thread’s getting a little long in the tooth when you see references to other posts you don’t recognize and don’t particularly care to check out before writing your next post. Kaleem mentioned the Beatles somewhere, apparently? Was this in connection to the 40th anniversary of “Abbey Road”, or something?

Whatever. This is what happens when you duck out for dinner and a movie. Let’s see if I can do some more damage, here.

(1) RE Allen’s visuals– Sorry to sound so dismisive, but this is why I can’t really take the man seriously as a director. He’s a great writer, and knows how to deal with actors like a pro. But his overall visual style changes from cinematographer to cinmematographer– from Willis, to Nykvist to Di Palma and whoever the hell else he’s worked with over the years, his work looks as though it’s shot by a completely different set of directors. There are some commonalities– he occasionally likes black & white, he tends to favor 1.85:1, almost everything he shoots is in “postcard shots”. There’s never anything unnatractive about his movies, but there’s never anything altogether visually ambitious, either. He doesn’t take the same types of chances with his images that he does with his scripts. Furthermore, a good deal of his films in general feel rather one-note to me, or at least the ones he stars in himself. Granted, he’s been outgrowing that lately, but as a package, he’s not a filmmaker whose body of work I have all that much respect for as a whole. He might be a New York institution, but still, his films all kinda blend together for me, like so many episodes of “Law & Order”. Call it a respectful pass.

(2) RE the 70’s– I’m just trying to make a point here, mostly. The overveneration of this decade really tends to bother me, especially as it inevitably arrives with that most annoyingly untrue assertion, “They don’t make’em like they used to.” Quality films never stopped being made after the 70’s– we just transitioned to a different generation of filmmakers. I’ll admit that some of my favorite work is from that decade– Coppola was at the top of his game, especially– but I simply refuse to deify the output of those years at the expense of all that’s come before and since. And yes, there is a fair deal of commercial reality in many of the cherished classics of the 70’s that rarely goes examined. I do honestly believe the films of those years exhibit a degree of conservatism that’s a little hard to shake at times. The films of the 80’s were a bit more rebellious at times, perhaps, because there was a stronger studio system to rebel against. I like that.

(3) RE Jackson– Glad to hear I’m not alone in my skepticism of him. Jackson may be a more evenhanded talent when it comes to writing screenplays and directing actors, but none of his best films are based on original ideas (unless you’re into Raimi-type splatstick like “Meet the Weebles” or “Ghostbusters”-lite fare like “The Frighteners”, which I’m not) and after a while all of his visuals are just kind of generically “epic” feeling– it’s as though he learned to shoot exclusively from establishing shots and super-duper close-upts. That said, “Heavenly Creatures” and “Fellowship of the Ring” are both solid, quality films. The rest of the “Lord of the Rings” series got tedious for me (I never emotionally connected with heartthrobs Viggo and Orlando, never gave a damn about the human factions, always got annoyed by Merry & Pippin, and always got bored by the fucking tree people), while “King Kong” turned out to be the most abysmally boring experience I’ve seen since the underwater fight from “Thunderball”. I’ve heard a great many criticisms of Lucas’ work over the years– that it’s juvenile, wooden, annoying, artificial, unsophisticated– but I’ve never heard it called boring. That, to me, is the true line in the sand between them.

Granted, I’m sure I’m now going to hear detractors coming up with all kinds of ways of saying how much Lucas’ work put them to sleep (probably involving political talk), but I say, let them come! You can have my opinion when you pry it from my cold dead hands…

…okay, that didn’t really sound as cool as I thought it would, but you get the idea. Onto the barricades! ¡Viva Lucas!

(4) RE Spielberg– He just needs to get over his Mommy issues and start making actual movies again instead of using his cinematic resources to keep sucking his thumb. Sadly, I don’t think he’s anywhere near that yet, working as he is on a goddamn “Tintin” movie, for Christ’s sake. EON, could you just let him direct the next fucking Bond movie so he can start taking himself a little less seriously again, please?

(5) Jamie– No luck on tracking down the Kazans you mentioned, so I decided to pop “Days of Heaven” into the ol’ TV again to see how I felt about it. I’m sad to say that I spent most of the time checking to see how much longer the film had to run. I respect the movie, but I’ve come to realize that it more or less represents a perfect storm of things I’m not interested in– all the turn-of-the-century salt of the Earth, “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men” farmhand labor stuff isn’t my thing, love-triangles put me to sleep, and I’ve never really cared for the mollases-slow pacings of films that stretch what is ostensibly 20 minutes of actual story into 100 or so minutes of screen-time. It’s all just a little too Steinbeck for me– classic Americana, but dry as a locust-infested field set afire, nonetheless.

While it’s occasionally visually breathtaking, the rest of the time it’s just kinda there, coasting on the cushion of sepia-toned nostalgia. Granted, it tells its story almost exclusively through visuals, for which I have absolute respect for it. Still, I prefer my period films to be a little more plot-heavy, like “Heaven’s Gate” or “Picnic At Hanging Rock”. At the end of the day, this is a movie I can only admire from a distance, and can only admit to feeling guilty to yawn through, if I must. For the life of me I can’t understand Malick’s rabid following, but hey– Laughton’s got just as many fans as anybody, and he only directed one fucker.

This was the second time I’ve watched the movie. I don’t think I’ll watch it again, at least not anytime soon. But I will say this for Malick– he’s one of the only directors I can imagine capable of translating one of my favorite short-stories to the movies, “The Yellow Wallpaper”. Granted, if and when that ever gets the big screen treatment, the proto-feminist story is much more likely to be handled by a female director– probably a wise idea– but still, it’s easy to imagine his mannerisms fitting to Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s haunting little story.

I think everyone’s summed up that this thread has grown to ridiculously gargantuan proportions. I agree when Sam said Bob’s pretty thick-skinned, though to be honest to promote Lucas as a visionary you’d have to be verging on the skin of a pachyderm so as not to be wounded by the inevitable slings and arrows of outrageous indignation that will come his way.

Re Jackson, this pro- and anti- thing comes down to one simple thing. A small minority of people – generally those who like to think of themselves as intellectual and anything popular as beneath their contempt – see them as something to turn their noses up at at because they can’t stand all that fantastic hobbit nonsense (at least that’s the pretext). As I have argued with one commenter here for years, they will only be happy with a LOTR made by Antonioni, where the final ascent of Mount Doom is interrupted by a panoramic long shot of Frodo and Sam kicking their heels up the mountain as a few snakes slither past and the distant cry of fighting armies can be heard – ten minutes of absolutely nothing in a film they already consider topheavy with endings (so what exactly is self-indulgent, gentlemen?). Or perhaps Bresson’s LOTR, where everyone clanks around in armour as if from a school play and armies at Helm’s Deep are reduced to a minimalist and more manageable 30 or so on either side.

Jackson is a master storyteller. I prefer the trilogy to any Star Wars film because it has a depth to it in the characterisation that SW plain and simply does not and never will have – Tolkien gave it that. All SW mythology was borrowed from elsewhere anywhere, a ragbag of clichés in search of a script, a western in outer space. Entertaining, and though people are wrong to dismiss its impact – it is a milestone as I have said before – it’s a reprehensible one.

The sad thing is that certain directors are lionised and conversely vilified simply by being popular and/or cool. In 1992 after Reservoir Dogs it was fine to like Tarantino, but after the success of Pulp Fiction, intellectuals distanced themselves (actually rightly with hindsight as his later films are underwhelming, but that doesn’t disguise the pre-judgement that popular equals bad). The Coen Brothers likewise were considered okay so long as the general populace didn’t discover them, but now a couple of Oscars later, they’re contaminated and they go elsewhere.

What these intellectuals are doing is making film – which should be both entertainment and art – into the opera of the late 20th and early 21st century, where snobbery is the first necessary attribute to discussing and a list of great films is worthless if it doesn’t exclude several shoe-ins ands include several “WTF” entries. A true film fan should see both for what they are, embracing both and seeing them as part of the landscape.

The LOTR trilogy ensures Jackson’s place in the Hall of Fame. Frankly, it amounts to more than Spielberg’s career, if not had the same influence over the populace. The fact is that Jackson has now found himself marginalised by intellectuals twice over. Firstly trashed for his gory horror cheapos in the late eighties and early 90s, then praised for Heavenly Creatures, then vilified for daring to make a lot of money and do a better job of LOTR than anyone could have imagined. Why some critics hated it is because they hated him for NOT ballsing up. Certain critics like to tear things to shreds. They get a kick out of it. When a director screws up their plans – ie. does a damned good job – they think “shit, how can I slag him off now?” I know, the INTELLECTUAL CARD. Let’s play that. So out come the lines about if I see another orc or hobbit I’ll die, and how it has no depth, and it’s all special effects, dreaming of what Rivette might have made of it – much as I love Rivette – perhaps by having the Hobbits at Eisengard tucking into the food store finding that several boiled sweets transport them into modern day Paris where they are led on a journey not to Mount Doom, but to find a French café that serves second breakfast and disappointed when they order a croque monsieur to find they’d need about 70 to even get remotely close to full prompting Merry to ask “any cake?” and the Frenchw aiter to shrug his shoulders and go off while a moonwalking bear from a Youtube video wanders by for no apparent reason and intelelctuals gasp in awe about how it’s a comment on his humanity, ven hobbit humanity (if that’s not a contradiction) has to face up to where it came from and how everyone is, subconsciously, wearing a disguise to protect them from the cruel world. GIVE ME STRENGTH! You can see whatever you like if you look hard enough.

Poor Bob, I see him more and more like Admiral Lord Horatio d’Ascoyne in Kind Hearts and Coronets, obstinate to the last, refusing to turn his ship to starboard because he has the right of way on the high seas, sinking his ship in a collision, and insisting on going down with his ship, in his case muttering “the force will always be with you” and dreaming of Yoda (how people can criticise the creatures of Tolkien and embrace Yoda is just mystifying).

So let’s draw a line under this thread or very soon otherwise, and not without irony, it will pass Sam’s LOTR post in terms of number of comments, which is quite ridiculous.

(1) To criticize “Star Wars” as borrowed mythology while praising “LOTR” doesn’t quite make sense to me. As I’ve said before, the fairy-tale world of magical rings and hobbits is largely just Camelot nonsense rearranged through the prism of Wagnerian Nordic-cycles. There’s just as many tired and worn cliches in the tales of middle earth as there are in the galaxy far, far away. Considering your appreciation for Arthurian legend, I’d think you’d know that.

(2) My criticism of Jackson’s treatment of “LOTR” has nothing to do with intellectual elitism– remember, I’m the guy who’s praising George Lucas. Rather, it has to do with my overall lack of interest in the non Frodo/Sam/Gollum storylines, and Jackson’s more or less undisciplined editing.

Frankly, Allan, I’m nearly struck speechless by the degree to which you’re unable to see past the end of your own nose on this matter. I’ve done my best to remain as dispassionate and respectful throughout these entire proceedings, but time and again you’ve treated any contrary opinion to your own with an arrogant, presumptive and condescending attitude.

You are allowed to dislike Lucas’ films– nobody’s denying you that. But please show the rest of us the same respect we give to you and not put words in our mouths whenever anybody dares to criticise part of your own personal canon. I’ve got every reason to dislike the “Lord of the Rings” films as you have to dislike the “Star Wars” films. If we can’t agree on them, we can at least agree to disagree on them.

Wrong on me to… I don’t care for the LOTR, but I love Bob Clark’s early films and John Carpenter, specifically ‘Christine’. You saying anyone not liking ‘LOTR’ because they have intellectual aspirations or whatever is the ultimate strawman. I could just not like these films.

btw, my love of ‘Heavenly Creatures’, ‘Dead Alive’, and to a lesser extent ‘Bad Taste’ is widely know around here.

yeah I agree Sam. supposedly he’s going back to films like that, let del Toro handle the fantasy BS. (I don’t mean this as a dig on del toro, I liked some of his earlier films ok, like ‘Devil’s Backbone’ or ‘Cronos’– plus he had the nuts to cast my favorite actress in his Hellboy series, the beautiful Ms. Selma Blair).

Go for it Bob. Ignore the thought police and those who make personal attacks. This is your thread as much as theirs. While I agree and disagree with you, I know Sam only wants free and open discussion here. For the record, I am with you on Spielberg and agin’ you on Lucas, but hey it’s a free galaxy, so keep on hitch-hiking. All the sanctimony here on Spielberg reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Jerry was attacked for making out during Schindler’s List.

Nice one, Tony, who brings to mind another moment from the Marxes history, Groucho marching up and down and singing “Whatever it is, I’M AGAINST IT!”

As for not being able to see beyond the end of my own nose, Bob. Congratulations on calling another kettle black. From someone making such sweeping statements on all and sundry with an authority at best described as minimal, at worst laughable, it redefines hypocrisy for an entire age. If you can’t see that Jackson’s directorial prowess is streets ahead of Lucas then really, I’ll order you a labrador with a harness.

But let’s get a balance. You want tact – you cover that bill, you take it to the level where you applaud everything, good, bad, or downright “chuck him in a padded cell and throw the key down the khasi” insane. You’re a politician who says exactly what the other person wants to hear, irrespective as to its accuracy to your true feelings, which may be the polar opposite. You are the WHATEVER IT IS, I’M FOR IT, IT’S GREAT guy. We have Tony for the exact opposite, where every opinion is a contrary one. I wouldn’t change you or Tony for anything. I know where I stand with both of you and admire you both in different ways. That’s the way we want things.

I’ll take Bob’s and Movieman’s comments all the time because they can give as good as they get and they don’t mince words. That’s how I prefer it. No bullshit, no procrastination, no backslapping, no sycophancy (you go on about the overuse of that word, but it’s the only accurate one), no hypocrisy. As we say in the North of England, “no nonsense”. In the same way as when I get a compliment off someone it’s worthwhile when it’s from someone who doesn’t give them easily. Yet people must expect that when they make fiery statements, people will fight fire with fire. MovieMan says “Jackson cannot construct a movie” and says it like it’s a fact when it’s actually with the same authority as someone exclaiming “the world is flat, you hear me? FLAT!!!”

If I act with incredulity it’s because I think better of certain people than to make such statements. It’s a compliment of sorts. There are people on this and other sites who make statements but you ignore them because they have shown to be not playing with a full stack. You compliment everyone on everything, which is nice, but it devalues your compliment. When I see a good guy I respect as a talent write something that I am actually not too impressed by, I say nothing rather than upset them with criticism because I feel they are capable of better but they are not friends and thus it would not be my place to say “this isn’t that good, you can do a lot better.” But when someone says or writes something great, I will comment to say so.

Let’s take a story, in old fashioned Christ-like terms. A millionaire gives out 10 dollar bills to people in the streets every day. People love him because he gives them what they need, but they become accustomed to it, and know that 10 bucks to him is peanuts. Another guy has a bit of money, but no millionaire, and he gives money to certain people occasionally when he can, and to those he knows deserve it. They’re both doing good, but only one is being entirely altruistic. The first is doing it as much to make himself feel good as the recipients.

In other words, I won’t change. I know there are people who find this distasteful, but I don’t care about that – you know where you stand with me, and there’s nothing I say about anyone I wouldn’t say worse about myself. My friends and those close to me know that I am not what I am accused of on this site, and they’re the only people that matter to me.

See, it’s parables like those that got Christ put on a cross. It wasn’t that he was proclaiming himself the Son of God, challenging the authority of the Pharisees or the rule of the Roman Empire– it was because nobody could understand what the fuck he was talking about. So they decided to crucify him, just to make everyone’s lives easier. Problem solved.

No, what got Christ crucified is that he was walking past a crucifixion one day and declared “call that a cross? That’s shoddy workmanship. I know, I was trained as a carpenter and I wouldn’t use that for firewood.” The Romans got miffed and gave him a closer look.

That reminds me of a documentary I saw once on Kurosawa. Some filmmaker (I forget who) talked about how he took this “easy” girl out on a date, and decided to see “Seven Samurai” simply because it was the longest film playing. Well, needless to say, he never bothered to get into her pants because he was so captivated by the actual film.

It also reminds me, some critic (Roger Ebert? Jack Matthews?) once said that a movie can’t really be called romantic if it doesn’t inspire couples to start rapturously making out in the theater, or if they’re watching at home, start making love that very instant. If that’s the case, however, the most romantic movies ever made are films nobody actually pays attention to. Or porn.

P.S. Allan – Jackson has no clue how to construct a movie. I’m not saying the prequels were wonderful storytelling but compared to Jackson’s work – particularly King Kong, in which scene after scene plopped down like yet another turd from the director’s ass (you’re welcome for that image) – they were William fucking Shakespeare.

It’s odd– Jackson’s a fine guy at adaptations, but he just couldn’t see that some things don’t need adapting. “LOTR” had to be done eventually, and we can debate it up and down but by and large, he did it justice. “King Kong”, however, was completely unnecessary, and for such a redundant remake, wasn’t even very good.

I’d like to think that movie’s lukewarm response taught him a lesson, but we won’t really know until we find out the running time for “The Lovely Bones”.

Good, Dennis, because it’s my last comment for a while. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, and as I have a few days off work I intend to savour them – something impossible to do here, a mixture of sycophancy, insincerity, hypocrisy and downright stupidity such as I have rarely heard.

That said I am in mourning, as the thread is right now within TWO comments of overtaking my beloved LOTR thread of last month to become the most commented on in the history of WitD. I never thought that possible. LOL!!!!

Well Dennis. It’s official. You comment was #215, which has established a new record here at WitD. There have been many here who are responsible for this landmark, but none as prolific as Bob Clark and Movie Man.

i really like that piece on him. i guess we’ll just end this conversation… you think ‘Phantom Menace’ is worthwhile, ‘Days of Heaven’ not so much. We’ll never see eye to eye on this.

not sure why you are having all the trouble with the Kazan’s all the ones I mentioned (except ‘Wild River’ which is R2) can be found on Region 1 dvds pretty easily. If you can’t find them, you aren’t looking hard enough. Do you have Netflix? they are all there pretty much…

Jamie, I really hope Bob comes back here and sees your remarks. He’s really invested so much of his time and energy into this thread and many others, that I dread the prospects of his leaving us. I don’t agree with all his positions, but I still respect them greatly.

I’ve changed my mind. We are all going to see an afternoon showing of PONYO, the Japanese animated film at 2:10 in th elocal Edgewater multiplex. I hadn’t realized this was opening wide. I will be back here at around 4:00 P.M., a bit over two hours from now.

Jamie, I browsed a bookstore for an hour yesterday, and the only Kazans I could find were ones I’d already seen. It was by no means an exhaustive search. Honestly, I’ll probably just wait until they’re in rotation on TCM.

Allan, I’ve tried to respond to you with patience and an open mind. I have my preferences, you have yours– one would think that we could co-exist and respect one another’s differences, as I’ve been able to do with a fair many fellow commentators here, and they with me. However, time and again all you’ve been interested in doing is cleverly poking fun at the splinter in mine own eye while remaining cheerfully, perhaps even willfully ignorant, of the two-by-four lodged squarely in your own.

The zealotry of your endorsement of Jackson, and the blindness with which you ignore many, if not most of the faults and flaws he shares with Lucas, amounts to a very ugly kind of creative bigotry and does lasting discredit to your obvious intelligence. It’s maddening to me that you can be so critical of one filmmaker, yet cannot stand to even tolerate the barest whispers of criticism towards one of your own favored directors, labeling all such contrary opinions as intellectually dishonest, if not outright idiotic. I’ve never agreed with those who throw criticism at Lucas’ work, but I’ve never begrudged their opinions, either. All I’ve ever tried to do has been to voice my own, as a contrary counterpoint, in the hopes that such duality could be treated with the same respect that I show others.

But you, Mr. Fish, are different. You suffer the weight of such a comically belaboured chip on your shoulder, one would think that Ayn Rand would be busy writing a new book about you in hell. Again, I’m not asking that you give up your cherished defense of Jackson, or even that you give up your non-stop barrage against Lucas. All I am asking is that you do so with respect to those you voice support the opposition. Judge not, lest ye be judged, aye?

However, if what you’ve said is true, it’s clear that you will be just as unable to read or respond to an appeal such as this one. That’s all well and good, however, as I’m tired of turning the other cheek with you. Therefore, in the interests of closing this absurd chapter, allow me to put this into the only terms that your discource deserves: Fuck you.

Not to get in the middle of this Allan vs. Bob spat, but I would kick myself if I didn’t mention, that when talking about showing someone ‘respect’ shouldn’t watching someone’s movie while ‘wanting it to be over’ and checking the watch while it’s playing be considered disrespectful also?

that doesn’t seem to show the beauty of Malick’s images any respect, to me at least. just a thought, I await your comments on the essay I posted as well, I think if anything you’ll enjoy it as a read.

I didn’t see Mr. Malick in the room with me, so I don’t think he’d mind. And at least I had the decency to admit it, after all. Besides, I’m not talking about respect for a film (none of us seem to be able to do that, if we don’t like it), but merely respect for someone who endorses it. I can safely say that I no longer enjoy “Days of Heaven”– I can’t even pretend to like it, as I used to– but I don’t think any less of you, Jamie, for believing in it.

And no, I don’t have a netflix account. I just don’t like the system. Just me.

Let’s draw a line under it, Jamie. Bob’s entitled to his opinion. he’s just unlucky that the entire thrusts of his arguments on his first major thread here have been, to my eyes at least, let us say bizarre. Had it been several discussions in I would probably have said nothing.

One thing I will stand by is that the 1980s was the worst decade for film. Partly because the 1980s was the decade of style over substance and embracing it (it’s a feeling that still lingers in mainstream fare now). In France they called the style Cinema du Look, and it was exemplified in the 80s work of Besson, Carax and Beineix. The same might be said of Cameron and several others. The 1980s was all about noise, about special effects, it was the generation influenced by the short attention span pyrotechnics of pop videos, and it spread like gangrene through 80s cinema. It was the beginning of the Cliff’s Notes generation where a film could be one big chase. It was directly as a result of the success of Star Wars, all the pretenders to the crown, just as juvenile but not as much fun, often distinctly tiresome.

And I am a fan of Music Video’s (or at least the art that COULD be achieved with the form; ever seen Jarman’s ‘It’s a Sin’ video for the Pet Shop Boys? or his ‘Tainted Love’ at least I think Jarman also did TL..)? But there effect on cutting for the negative is undeniable. another thing I believe Lucas has his fingerprints on… digital editing, great tools to be sure but it made it ‘too easy’ to over cut and butcher films. Action films can never be the same.

I wish Peckinpah, and Roeg were doing there great work with this stuff so they could show the hacks how it’s done…

It’s not about a defence of Jackson – whose earlier gore movies I cannot stand and whose The Frighteners is a mess – and who is as capable of making a lemon in the future as anyone (every master has made them), but your numerical listings of directors and your perceived problems with them as if it’s fact is supreme arrogance, and I responded in turn. If I went too far, well I’m sorry, but I only said what several people who read your comments were thinking. Tact’s Sam’s domain, I am straight to the point and are just as critical of myself. If you’d been here longer you’d have seen me berate certain people for saying nice things about pieces I’d written that I thought wetre mediocre.

You can think I have a chip on my shoulder, I can honestly say that I don’t any more than the next man, as those who know me away from this site at home will know, and that’s all that matters to me. Likewise my opinions on a film should not matter one iota to you, stick to your guns.

At least we agree on something, however, and that is that this entire discourse has been just one thing, completely absurd and, I might add, completely worthless for all concerned.

Bob, I’d not get too angry with Allan, as we’ve gotten into our arguments with him in the past but one should not mistake his caustic tone with ill intent – tomorrow you two could be agreeing on something and I doubt he’d hold your earlier disagreement against you. Just have to take it as it comes, pretty much (or not if that’s your choice, but I find it better to take that approach). Anyway, I can say this thread would not have been 1/4 as long without, not only the controversy you provoked but the very thoughtful and steadfast way you defended your opinions and continued to engage with the criticism.

So I hope you stick around, anyway. At any rate I am wracking my brain for ways to avoid the Internet next week so I can have at least several days to focus on other matters before my Netflix resumes (or else I may have to postpone that again). Even checking e-mail does not keep you safe from being sucked into the whirlpool! I love it here, but it can get exhausting…

Agreed, MovieMan (I said I was taking a rest for a few days earlier today, but got sucked back in), and I agree with what you say in the first paragraph. It’s just me, blunt to the nth degree. That’s why Sam, the diamatric opposite, is the perfect balance. Honesty vs politics. And no, I don’t hold grudges, life’s too short, it’s only a discussion, however heated, nothing more.

As Bob mentioned silent expressionism earlier in the thread I was tempted to ask him about his tastes in silent cinema at the time, as the silent era is for me the purest era of cinema. The only reason I didn’t is that there’ll be plenty of time to discuss silents when that poll comes around. Perhaps I should have done so anyway, this flared up largely because it was a first meetign with one another.

Lang. A bit of Murnau, a smidgeon of Wegener, maybe even a little bit of Weine, for good measure. But Lang, for me, is king. Everything from “The Spiders” to “Woman in the Moon” is silent gold, with special notice for “Dr. Mabuse” and “Die Nibelungen”.

Don’t be offended if I say that I figured Lang would be your guy (I won’t pick bests as well, I gotta hold surpises for the silent poll). I prefer Murnau, but anyone who says Lang isn’t a master needs one of those labradors.

“Pandora’s Box” is beautiful, but it’s one of those movies I don’t know if I ever want to watch again. I just get sad thinking about Lulu. It doesn’t help things that Louise Brooks is basically my idea of a dream woman, and that her own life was, to say the least, melodramatic. Poor thing…

His “Threepenny Opera” is good, too, if incomplete. Granted, that goes beyond his silent years, but no doubt, Pabst was a marvel. Can’t say I know Dupont.

It’s not surprising, his German best Variety isn’t on DVD anywhere, but his late Brit silent Piccadilly gives you an idea of his mastery of camera movement. Check that out. Just got hold of his Moulin Rouge from 1928, too, which I’ll watch over the weekend.

With Pabst, The Love of Jeanne Ney and Diary of a Lost Girl are essential. Also Joyless Street, but hold back on that till the German FilmMuseum release in September, which will cost an arm and a leg, but which I’m getting then. It’s restoring the film completely, including adding deleted footage.

Die Dreigroschenoper I like OK, but it’s a pale imitation of Brecht/Weill’s original. Of his talkies, I’d take Westfront 1918 or kameradschaft over it.

As for Louise Brooks, dunno about dream woman, but if she was I wouldn’t be complaining.

The fact that you’re dismissive of the whole “cinema du look” movement probably says everything about where our differences are, here, as guys like Besson are one of the reasons I value 80’s filmmaking in the first place. I wouldn’t say that in theirs was a cinema of style over substance– it was a cinema in which style WAS the substance. No wonder I don’t find Lucas reprehensible, then, because I find the changes his work wrought was for the better. “Le Grand Bleu” is still one of my favorite films.

Whatever. It sounds as though we have all come to terms, but there really haven’t been any lessons learned. You are free, my friend, and that is why you are lost.

But in terms of lessons learned, have you learned any, Bob? Because it seems you would only accept agreeing with you as learning lessons. As for being lost, if it means not seeing the 1980s as a great decade in cinema and not slagging off Von Stroheim and Von Sternberg, then long may I be lost. If I may paraphrase the song from the cursed – for you and several others – Tolkein saga, LOST AND DON’T WANT TO GO HOME.

As for Besson, I love Leon, but find most of his stuff empty. To me, and anyone else on this site worth their salt, a world where Besson is favoured to Von Stroheim is a world I’d want to quit. And don’t worry, Bob, you wouldn’t have to kill me, I would be more than happy to self-terminate.

…”lessons learned” was my way of agreeing with you, on the point of how worthless most of this has been. I don’t ask that anyone agrees with me, just that we show respect to one another’s differences of opinions. I can see that you’re trying, but still, there’s a time to turn off the caustic wit and just let those war wounds cauterize, instead. I should know– how do you think my skin got so thick, in the first place?

As for Tolkien, again– as you will. All this just makes me want to read Lewis again, and sink my teeth into an imagination I’m more in touch with.

Well, he was a contemporary of Tolkien’s, so it makes the most sense. Also, my book club is going to be covering “The Screwtape Letters” soon, and I’m looking forward to it. But yes, my lapsed Catholic heart can’t always take Aslan seriously. But hey, that’s why God invented alethiometers, right?

Yeah, the Narnia films were a real missed opportunity. With the way Lewis tackles 20th century realism and Church-tinged magical fantasy, I dare say that in the right hands the series could’ve easily outdone Jackson’s Tolkien trilogy, in terms of modern-day relevance.

I’d say the same thing of Pullman’s Dark Materials, only the sad thing there is we got what probably would’ve been a great film out of Weitz if the studio-heads at New Line hadn’t decided to do the same thing to the film that Mrs. Coulter did to the children and their daemons. The unkindest cut of all…

So do I, but in all honesty, “Cosmopolis” makes a really good fit for Cronenberg’s style, and might be the most easily adapted of all his works. “Libra” would be the next easiest– good luck pushing that through after Oliver Stone broke the film world’s Kennedy conspiracy cherry, though. “Mao II” is a little insubstantial in its post-Salman Rushdie story, but could be retooled to fit our age. “White Noise” was pursued for a while by Barry Sonenfeld of all people (shudder). And “Underworld”? As an HBO miniseries perhaps, but no way on earth would that work in theaters.

I just finished “Falling Man” as well, by the way. Surprised by how effective it was.

I actually think ‘Mao II’ is the most easily screenplay material, with the right director it could be great. I’ve always thought like a Resnais could do it perfectly, ala his ‘La guerre est finie’ (‘War is Over’) seems similar.

‘Libra’ you are correct treads on much of ‘JFKs’ territory (or is it that ‘JFK’ treads on ‘Libra’s?)

And yes, ‘Cosmopolis’ may not be a favorite, I do love it, and Cronenberg’s more mature style seems to fit it very well. ‘Cosmpolis’ also perhaps seems the most timely right now.

RE Libra– the book came first, but apparently at the same time that Stone was researching “JFK”. In fact, there was apparently going to be a movie of “Libra” done around then that Stone might’ve pressured against to keep his own movie intact from competition. It’s the same sort of thing he might’ve done up against Baz Luhrman’s Alexander the Great picture.

Relevance is, by the way, the main reason I’m not a big fan of Tolkien– his world is impressive and convincing, but it has pretty much nothing to do with reality. Guys like Lewis and Pullman each deal with reality even while dispensing with it in favor of fantasy– the WWII roots of Narnia and and the Protestantism-free alternate history route of Dark Materials make their worlds much more compelling for me, because they’re concretely connected to the world I live in. Even “Star Wars” is at least designed to at least resemble 20th century civilization in some way– yes, it boils down to very simplistic terms, but it works for me in the same way that Doonesbury does. It’s a great big political cartoon, with all the subtlety of Thomas Nast, but being I appreciate that broad-stroke, cinematic vaudville.

The major political point in Lucas’ films is basically what Winston Churchil said– democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. The major political point of Tolkien? Something about uniting under a common cause, a single rule, a lone ruler. Perhaps it’s a cultural thing, but that Arthurian longing for a one-man god-king always makes me feel a little uncomfortable. Tolkien, and Jackson, bring that world to life well, but it’s never been a world I’d want to live in, so it’s hard for me to look up to it the same way you do, Fish.

This is not to open up the old arguments again, by the way. Just some musings.

“Style as substance” – not to open up a can of worms now that we all seem to be on good terms again, but I would apply this more to someone like Godard. With Besson & the like (and there’s no doubt that style has been hugely influential) the substance actually kind of gets in the way of style. Von Sternberg once said he chose insipid stories so that they wouldn’t distract from his lavish style, but actually I find that kind of choice MORE distracting. The story doesn’t have to be great, but if there IS a story (and there doesn’t have to be) it shouldn’t be so one-dimensional or silly that you have to apologize for it while defending the style.

I’m a great fan of valuing form highly, but I do feel that when film is even partially a narrative art the narrative has to be taken into account. It isn’t a be-all, end-all, but it is a factor. This is why, like Bob, I was a little irked with Lynch’s kinda a story, kinda not approach to Inland Empire – I would have preferred all-out experimental (which it was, in parts) or else, like Mulholland Drive, there being some kind of “answer” however open-ended. Yet I do love Rivette who’s all about starting narrative threads only to riff on them. I guess it’s all in how you do it which is worth a thesis but not from me at this moment.

Kubrick said something about this once, I think– how he saw the true spectrum as being between “style” and “content”. To him, Hitchcock represented pure “style”, and Chaplin pure “content”. Obviously, he was trying to fit somewhere between, and I think it’s fair to say that any great filmmaker does, as well. There’s still a question of what specific type of “style” or “content” is being produced, for what audience, and such. It’s never as simple as a single pair of polar opposites.

And yet Chaplin’s anti-style is a kind of style (certainly its miles away from – and miles more appealing – than your standard comedy style today) and Hitchcock’s style was always deeply attached to content, even if his plots were MacGuffins they were – by the very nature of a MacGuffin – elaborate and hard to miss. To the point where story is the first thing that comes to mind when a lot of people (non-cinephiles, mostly) think of Hitch. Actually, I think Kubrick may have been even further along the “style over content” side of things than Hitch.

I personally find (despite its many adherents) LOTR grossly overrated. I would say something similar for the director as well (though I do have a weakness for his King Kong). More recently I gave the extended cuts a chance based on Sam’s recommendation. Return of the King started off well enough and then went nowhere for me. I just find this trilogy bloated and turgid with all due respect to the fans.

I would take Star Wars over this any day of the week! I wouldn’t call the franchise a work of art or anything. I don’t like the second trilogy. Like the first two films of the first one very much and the third somewhat. But the Lucas achievement is quite genuine here at many levels. High art it ain’t!

Ah Kaleem, you are one of my most revered people and a close personal friend, but you know we are miles apart here. Which is cool. I believe the sweeping and operatic THE RETURN OF THE KING as one of the greatest films of the new millenium. But I’ve said that before, haven’t I? LOL!!!

I value “Star Wars” over “LOTR” if for no other reason than it’s an original piece of cinema, rather than an adaptation. It’s a clearly illogical bias of mine, but one I endorse wholeheartedly. For the same reason, I’d say “The Conversation” is a more important film than, say, “Apocalypse Now”, even though I like the latter much more (especially the “Redux” version– my dad’s a Vietnam vet, and it wasn’t until the infamous French Plantation sequence that he finally started to embrace the film).

I’ll agree that “LOTR” is better scripted, better acted, but not that it’s better executed in terms of visual style, pacing, or overall story. It’s not a cultural driver, however, in the same way that “The Godfather” or “Star Wars” is– perhaps Tolkien’s original was, but Jackson never really exceeded the author’s vision in the same way that Coppola exceeded Puzo’s.

But it isn’t an original piece of cinema, Bob, the first film is borrowed from Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress just as The Magnificent Seven was on The Seven Samurai, while the mythology was an amalgam of various things he picked up. I can’t agree with originals being always better than adaptations, we need both in film. LOTR depends on being a fan of the books and of that sort of cinema. If you’re not, then you won’t like it. Besides, you’re seeing LOTR as an adult and through an adult’s cynicism. Chances are Star Wars’ adherents grew up with it as a child and will not have a bad word said about it. I’m with Kaleem in admiring SW and TESB of their type, but they’re not masterpieces of the decade, hence SW was in the low 90s in my 70s list and Empire in the 60s on the 80s list.

As for style and substance, one man’s style is another man’s substance.

Frankly, the whole “Hidden Fortress” connection has been fairly overblown, in my opinion. Granted, I’ll never fault a filmmaker for taking point from another’s work and modifying it as the basic structure for their own thing, but of all the directors to “base” their work off of Kurosawa, Lucas isn’t nearly doing the same thing as Sturges in “Magnificent Seven”, or Leone in “A Fistful of Dollars”, which in either case amounts to a kind of cinematic plagiarism.

The slight elements borrowed for “Star Wars”– the beggar droids, the lady in peril, the general’s longtime feud– feel more akin to how Kurosawa himself adapted the Bard in “Throne of Blood” or “The Bad Sleep Well”, with all the looseness of an easy-fit pair of jeans, liberally palming whatever elements fit into his grand scheme while ignoring everything else. There’s as much John Ford and Fritz Lang in “Star Wars” as there is Kurosawa, just as “Ran” is just as informed by Japanese history and folklore as it is “King Lear”. Granted, I wouldn’t argue that Lucas’ film reaches, or even aims quite that high, but he does something Sturges, Leone and Kurosawa himself arguably never did, and outdoes the work he takes inspiration from.

Still, I respect the director for being honest enough to mention the connection, because let’s face it– if it weren’t for his mentioning it in interviews, it’s likely nobody would’ve noticed the “Hidden Fortress” connection, even the sensei himself. If Lucas was as guilty as you say, Kurosawa would’ve done the same thing to him as he did to Leone, and sued the bastard. Instead, they made “Kagemusha” together. At the end of the day, I get that we see different things in this particular rorschach. To you, it’s “Blow Out”, and to me, it’s “The Conversation”, and while we can both agree that it has something to do with “Blow Up”, we ain’t gonna go much further than that.

It’s not an adult’s cycnicism through which I’m seeing “LOTR”, by the way. I grew up reading “The Hobbit” and the other books like everybody else. I just never really enjoyed Tolkien’s brand of magical feudalism, at least not as much as I enjoyed other things. Jackson’s films are quality, but stylistically derivative, and I’d put them more or less as low as you put Lucas’ in a list of the new millenium’s first decade, if at all. We’ve had greater pieces of escapist entertainment in the last few years.

I agree with you, Bob. I just saw The Hidden Fortress for the first time and was actually surprised how different the plot was from Star Wars – given all the hype about the connection between the two. (By the way, I loved Hidden Fortress, reviewed on my Examiner page, and will be making it one of my very rare DVD purchases soon.)

Oh, “The Hidden Fortress” is great, no doubt. It’s got one of the best cold-opens in cinema. I saw it for the first time when I was 10, and curious about the Japanese films that inspired Lucas, and while it’s not my favorite Kurosawa, I can hardly imagine a better introduction to his work. This is one of the reasons I continue to love “Star Wars” over the years– through all its pastiche and allusions, it’s one of the great cinematic gateway experiences.

By the by, there’s actually more of “The Hidden Fortress” to be found in “The Phantom Menace”, or at least more details that weren’t fitted into the original, especially with the royal girl who poses as a peasant to see how the other half lives. So while it might not be the definitive “source” for “Star Wars” that it’s gained the reputation for over the years, it certainly does cast a long shadow over the series.

At the Music Hall in Portsmouth, NH. Sadly, it was definitely not projected in its full aspect ratio – especially noticeable with Kurosawa who liked to use the far edges of the frame – but it was still nice to see it on the big screen.

Ouch. I hate when that happens. Last time it was at a local screening of “Moon”. Really, people, is it that hard to project 2.35:1 on a 1.85:1 screen, nowadays? You obviously found ways to do so for trailers and those commercials for the Marines.

Kaleem, just responded to Movie Man with dire prognostications for the future of film. You will have to scroll up the thread to read it. It is precisely this reason why I relentlessly pursue movies shown in theatres.

Sam, where is this post? I can’t find it – could you link to it? I just responded to Kaleem’s “iPod” post with a devil’s advocate defense of “screening” film clips on the Internet. (should be the most recent comment on the sidebar, but I’ll post a hyperlink in a second).

Kaleem says: “Now having said all of this I should add this — I do not believe the cinematic medium has so far seen a truly titanic talent. In other words someone to place alongside a Shakespeare or a Homer or a Tolstoy or a Bach or a Beethoven or a Raphael and so forth.”

Your points are well taken, but I don’t believe this is true. For one thing, I’d rank directors like Godard, Rivette and Fassbinder among the “titanic talents” to have graced the medium of film, and would happily sing their praises alongside anyone you choose to mention in the other arts. Of course, others may disagree, which brings up another point: it’s impossible to compare film as an artform to classical music because the context in which film arose has been just so completely different. There is no one figure who one can point to and say, “that’s the Mozart of film,” because everyone probably has their own ideas about who that might be. Classical music has been passed on to us by countless generations, filtered through scholars, so that by now most of us, unless we actively take an interest, know primarily of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc., the few names that get repeated ad nauseum. Film is a young artform and hasn’t had that long filtering process. I think that means, not that there have been no cinematic talents worthy of extolling alongside the greatest works of other artforms, but simply that film has not amassed a codified canon to the same extent as other artforms. Sure, there are accepted film masterpieces that everyone, more or less, loves, but if you ask 10 cinephiles to list the greatest directors ever, they’ll come up with a lot of different names, whereas if you ask 10 classical music buffs for the greatest composers, there’s Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc., again.

That’s a superb argument there Ed. Of course I would add Bergman, Chaplin, Keaton, Bresson, Ozu, Mizuguchi, Welles, Bunuel, Hitchcock, Renoir and Murnau to the three you mention. Ha! But I understand you were just making a point there.

But even Plato considered Homer a titan and so do we.. surely it didn’t take till our age for Bach or Mozart of Beethoven to become legends? Dante was considered the greatest in his very own age. One could I think multiply this list dramatically to include each and every art form. On cinema I think some great names would surely appear on most lists but there just isn’t the sort of titan everyone could agree on. I think this has less to do with cultural policing and more to do with the lack of an overwhelming figure. Also, and to repeat, an earlier point I don’t think cinema will ever have enough ‘history’ to radically change this sort of outcome. I think we are already at the ‘death of cinema’ in very many ways.

But who’s the Plato or Homer or Dante or Mozart of their respective fields today? It’s not like today’s literature or painting or music have comparable titanic greats who everyone can agree on. Again, you can say this is because the present talents are less than those of the past, but I think it’s more accurate to say that in general we’ve had much more cultural fragmentation, to the point where we’re not likely to find anyone in ANY art who has the kind of widely agreed-upon, world-changing impact of a Mozart or Dante. It’s not so much the difference between film, music and literature as artforms, as the difference between past centuries and the present one.

I think this fragmentation is a good thing, too. The LAST thing film, or any other art, needs is some massive figure who everyone feels the need to genuflect before.

I disagree, Ed. I want to see increased opportunity for everyone to have their say and express themselves (the long tail) but would also like genuine, culturally transcendent work to be created. I’ve posted a lot on this elsewhere, so I’ll leave it at that…but is it really so wonderful that ambition is now seen as “pretentious” and everything in literature and visual art seems to be buried in layer after layer of self-consciousness, as a prerequisite for “relevance”? Why must all works be minor nowadays?

And no, I don’t think you are saying those things ARE good, merely that when you open the door to fragmentation being entirely positive and the lack of transcendent works being a good thing, all the various limpnesses of postmodernism may came in without knocking.

Though I disagree with your follow-up to this, I agree with you here. The lack of as solid a canon for film as there is for classical music or other arts is, I think, due far more to the cinema’s short history than to inherent differences in the medium. That said, we still have a surprisingly secure pantheon of directors given that timeframe.

I have had this argument with Kaleem many times before, Ed. He approaches film with a pre-judgment that it’s an inferior art to begin with. Like a toff coming out of the opera house and strolling the streets of London’s East End to see how the other half live. There are titans in film, as Ed says, and many of them, just as there are in music and the other visual arts.

The one argument in which Kaleem can be seen to be right is if you take the argument that film has a lower common denominator than any other artform. Sure, there are awful painters and musicians out there, but they don’t make money out of it and aren’t shown to the whole world (well, except in ridicule on shameful TV programmes like Britain’s Got (No) Talent, whereas in film the likes of Johnny Mnemonic, GI Joe, Jack and Gigli are foisted on us. Film is the only artform where we have to sift through the latrines ourselves, the only artform where arts are housed with the dross in a warehouse much like Kane’s Xanadu and one man’s Rosebud is another man’s fart gag or gratuitous nudity.

The problem with cinemah is not that it hasn’t had any ‘titans’ but that elite snobbery fails to see that it has had too many.

I love music, literature, painting and they have their giants.

A figure is plucked from antiquity and another from here or there. How many of Shakesphere’s contemporaries have passed down to the present. Marlowe, maybe one or two others. And this is from the Elizabethen Golden Age.

The only reason they seem giants is that, aside from their immense talent, they are spread out thinly and have had several centuries of advocates for them.

Someone like Bernard Herrmann is all but ignored by the music intelligentsia.

But from 1915 to the present it’s had more great film artists. Powell/Pressburger, Welles, Wilder, Lubitsch, Murnua, Clair, Bergman, Ray, Coppola, Allan, Wyler, Hitchcock, Lean, the list goes on and on. They don’t stand out because there are too many of them, because all of their works are more available than at any other time in history.

I haven’t even mentioned the co-creator art of the art director, and Toland and Jimmy Wong Howe, ect, ect. and titans such as Brando.

Is the resistance by many to form a classical canon for film perhaps a sign of resistance against that very mode of thinking? As a game designer, this is a question I think about a great deal in regards to how my own chosen medium progresses in comparison to the development of other established modes of expression. Who says that games, or films have to apply the same standards to themselves as literature or music? Painting or sculpture? Isn’t it up to us how the critical and academic shape of our art form is honed?

Let’s also not forget that with the advent of the Internet and digital storage, it’s not as though we have to worry about the same issues of preservation anymore that those in antiquity did– Dante, if I’m not mistaken, never actually got the chance to read Homer himself (either through lack of availability or lack of translation), and subsided only on his cherished Virgil. Today, there’s nothing really holding anyone back from watching any given film as a DVD or torrent. Granted, we may have lost classics to the wayside of time and chance (I’m just glad that the full cut of “Metropolis” has been salvaged, saved from a fate worse than death– being forgotten) but it’s something we never really have to worry about again, barring WWIII. Therefore, why can’t we come up with not only a new canon for film, but a new concept for canons, itself?

Granted, it’s probably too late for cinema. Maybe even comics, too, no longer a dirty word to academics. But games– well, we’ve got the future ahead of us there…

This is a fantastic set of points Bob. I am all for anti-canonical efforts. However, in cinema I do think such efforts have been there. It is just that for all the reasons we’ve discussed here it is sometimes hard to get a definitive one. But cinema more than makes up for this with an obsession with lists! But you raise valuable points here.

I would disagree on lost films though. entire treasures have been lost. In Japan for example. But also elsewhere. And similarly there are hosts of films that are not really available in any commonly understood sense even for the obsessive. Perhaps these will with time. Who knows? Nonetheless a great deal has been lost.

I see canons, however problematic, as a necessity, maybe a necessary evil, but a necessity nonetheless. Without them, box office steps in as the arbiter of “what’s good” and Transformers 2 suddenly becomes one of the greatest films of all time.

I think canons should be flexible and diverse – and made up of many smaller, individualized canons. Of course they should not be set in stone by intellectuals up on a hill; on the other hand, there should be some sense of continuity with canons of other arts, partly so a rich cross-fertilization can brew, and partly to keep some sense of perspective on what has moved and provoked people throughout the ages – and also where the cinema draws some of its power from.

So I have to ask what do you mean by a “new concept for canons”? I find myself often an advocate of the “well” approach – think of how a well has set limits but seemingly infinite depths. Albeit that analogy is a bit confining, since I think canons and film analysis should have elastic, flexible boundaries, but boundaries nonetheless. I like boundaries which allow us to keep perspective, but which also allow for great depths and diversity.

Without any limitations, I think we fall into chaos and mush, which is why I have a general antipathy to the term “postmodernism” and much of what it represents…

I like the “well” metaphor for canons. But what definitions would you use? Genres? Decades? Part of me is most interested in tracing the habits and mannerisms of filmmakers over the years. Sometimes it’s very easy to see a chain of influence– Louis Feuillade begets Fritz Lang. Sometimes you can see branches– Fritz Lang begets Jean-Luc Godard and Akira Kurosawa. Then, at times, you can see those branches coming back together again in surprising ways– Godard and Kurosawa both beget George Lucas, who begets Peter Jackson, etc.

The family tree of directors interests me the most. It doesn’t exactly amount to a canon, but perhaps that’s for the best…

That depends on what kind of games you’re talking about. Triple-A console titles with their feverish devotion to next-gen graphics is one thing; Flash-based indie-fare by lone developers (avec moi) seeking greater emphasis on interactivity and narrative than aesthetics is quite another.

Some good points, Bob, re the internet, but again don’t take offence when I say that being a game designer perhaps showcases as much as any why what I call the problems of the 1980s you will call its virtues. It explains a lot…LOL

I loved the original ‘Fellowship of the Ring’ though I detected some padding and that Lean would have trimmed. The last of the trilogy left me less than impressed. I seem to find him bloated in his movie-making, expressed best in ‘King Kong’ with no mystery or poetry left after 3 hours. He seems to add even more hours of cuts to his dvds. Not surpised to find that he is a rather large fellow in the real world. I think Tolkien may the master story-teller, for Jackson, esp after KK….I’ll have to reserve judgement.

To me Lucas is the Gene Rodenberry of film-making, the less control he has, the better the work. What’s why ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ ranks as the great space opera and in it’s realm, the equal of ‘The Thief of Bagdad’.

Tarantino is immature raddled by scklocky tastes and pseudo-macho posturing….

With Spielberg, for me – it’s which one?

There is the journeyman tv helmer up to ‘Duel’.

Then there is the superb craftsman that gave us ‘Duel’, ‘Sugerland Express’ and ‘Jaws’ where his skill was married to adult writers, editors (he never forgave Verna Fields for rescuing ‘Jaws’ and gaining accolades).

Then there is the adolescent childlike auteur phase of hubris who sold out; CETK, 1941, Amazing Stories, ET, The Colour Purple, Hook….and who after buying the central prop from ‘Citizen Kane’ promised never to make sequels (4) or remakes (1), which he promptly did.

Now finally, in there is the slowly emerging adult film-maker; grimmer works occasionally misfiring because he still has the vestiges of his past, his issues cropping out from Schindler’s onwards. Selling out for the 4th Indy, collaboration on the forth-coming childish Tin-Tin, the rest of Saving Private Ryan following a superb opening 20 minutes, the compromised happy ending of A.I., even the sentimental gushing end of the superb Schindler’s. ‘Munich’ is the best, least compromised of this phase.

Kaleem, I don’t think it’s possible to exceed the global influence of Welles, for Scorcese’s visual style is derived from Welles and Powell. With Welles influence openly admitted to by the French New Wave, and the new ‘Hollywood Brats’ ‘70s, plus numerous film student since. Arguably, perhaps only Griffith had as much impact, one upon classical Hollywood cinema and the other on modern movies.

Bob, it’s strange that because ‘On the Waterfront’ wasn’t based on a famous book or play, that the director gets all the credit. huh. Buddy Schulberg must be spinning in his grave.

I can’t agree on your Lucas comment– even in the case of “Empire”, he had far more to do with his franchise than Roddenberry did with “Trek”, over the years. Lucas penned the story, co-wrote the script (though Leigh Bracket got credit, mostly so her kids would get the paycheck) and exhaustively pre-visualized the movie before shooting started, or before Kershner was even hired, through shot-by-shot storyboards. He even handpicked the cinematographer– Peter Suschitzky– before any other new crewmembers were selected, including the director. After that, he spent enough time on occasional set visits to course-correct if needed. The same can be said in the case of “Return of the Jedi”, as well, even moreso.

Anyway, I also enjoy the films he personally directed both before and after the original “Star Wars”. I do, however, like the sentiment comparing “Empire” to “Thief of Baghdad”, as Lucas feels very much like a modern-day Alexander Korda to me.

Tarantino– adolescant at times, yes, but there’s more than meets the eye to him. I find he and Lucas are very similar types of filmmakers, separated only by concentrated skills (screenwriting vs. photography & editing) and genre obsessions (lurid crime & grindhouse fare vs. sci-fi & arthouse fare). One thing’s for sure– they both make cinematic pulp fiction, just with different covers.

I have problems with Spielberg, too. As I have said before Schindler’s is his one great film, but not without flaws – ditch the graveside ending, the girl with the red jacket, etc. Saving Private Ryan is two set pieces in search of a middle and thoroughly two dimensional compared to the ruminations of malick’s The Thin Red Line. Munich is mediocre. E.T. is an excellent family film, but my opinions on in are the same as Star Wars – milestone, but not for the very best film lists (at least high up). AI is nearly great, and could have been great but for the last act. Jaws is one of my rollercoaster trilogy – great entertainment but not really a masterpiece of cinema.

I remember Scorsese’s quote in Century of Cinema about doing one for them (the money men) and one for yourself, so Spielberg gave them Jurassic Park so he could make Schindler’s, the sequel to Jurassic so he could make Ryan, the Indy 4 so he could make the delayed Lincoln.

For the rest, we have had to endure 1941 (awful), Close Encounters (arguably the most overrated and childlike film in existence), Empire of the Sun (great turn from Bale, but extremely sentimental), Raiders of the Lost Ark (matinee fare – a thrill ride with no centre), the inferior sequels/prequels to the same, Hook (P.J.Hogan’s Peter Pan was better and that wasn’t anything to write home about), Always (ugh!), Catch Me if You Can (OK for performances, nothing more), Minority Report and War of the Worlds (both contaminated with Cruise playing himself), Amistad (just dull), and several others.

Also, though undeniably a nice enough guy, I have an issue with his not doing commentaries on DVDs. Not for not doing them but for the REASON he gave for not doing them. He says they distract you from watching the movie. Well, the reason people watch them is to gain from the director’s insight into the making of the movie. This from the man who openly beamed at how he’d love showing the restored Lawrence of Arabia to David Lean and listening to the master tell him how he did this, did that, etc throughout the film. He could at least extend to DVD buyers if not the same courtesy (the only commentary I remember where you felt the man with you was Jack Nicholson’s for The Passenger) then the nearest they are likely to get.

We agree on something at last. “Schindler” is good because there are still moments throughout, especially in the early portions, where Spielberg is loose enough to enjoy himself in telling the story of a charming, philandering con artist of a war profiteer. It’s what helps fuel the shock and pity so much of the rest of the film drives– he legitimately earns the chaos onscreen, and finds a way to make us feel a kind of guilt for it as well, living it up vicariously with Liam Neeson while others suffered and died.

I still think you’re underestimating “Jaws” (I like the duality of it– Thorton Wilder-lite in part one, Hemmingway-lite with three dueling Santiagos in part two), but not as much as “Star Wars”, so I’ll defer. I can’t stand the reverence people have for latter day nonsense like “Minority Report” (Phillip K. Dick was done better in “Total Recall”) or “War of the Worlds” (classic example of how to ruin a perfectly good disposable action movie with an overwritten screenplay and straining set-pieces). For me, his best work is still “Duel”.

Great observation about Schindler – what you note is what makes the movie a masterpiece (it’s also part of what makes the movie a flawed masterpiece – at least when held alongside his often condescending portrait of the Jews and fluid staging of horrific violence).

I do have to say they alongside your great observations, are some downright bizarre formulations. The preference for originality is one, though at least you admit that’s a personal quirk – but actually I find the insistence that a director be both consistent and prolific (though you seem to except Lucas from this) even more bizarre – so few directors ever achieve that combination, as you more or less recognize. Who cares if they’re 50/50 or even less (in Allen’s case) – if you can produce a dozen, half-dozen, or even a handful of masterpieces in your career (maybe even ONE if it’s good enough), something so many directors never do, I think you’re worthy of being called “great.”

Also, the Allen thing can we PLEASE stop knocking his visuals? Annie Hall is a more visually imaginative film than Star Wars and don’t even get me started on Manhattan…

I don’t think I’ve ever insisted a director be inventive and prolific, though my memory can be spotty at times, so if you can quote an exact post I’ll see if it’s just a miscommunication. I’ve been talking a lot about quality vs. quantity lately, but that’s only to point out my preference for the former over the latter. I think there must’ve been a missed post somewhere, because I think I essentially argued your first paragraph, more or less.

“Annie Hall” and “Manhattan” are Allen’s best visual films, the latter an especially nice catalogue of vintage 70’s New York locations. Willis genuinely brought out the best in him, and there’s a lot of clever stuff going on in those films. But especially in the case of “Manhattan”, it can get a little self-conscious to me, and I’m not always certain Allen and Willis are picking certain shots for any reasons more meaningful than because they liked the way it looked. It’s a beautiful movie, but it’s a shallow kind of beauty, and I can’t take seriously as a thoughtful piece of visual art. Call it imaginative if you want, but to my eye it’s eye-candy for tourists, and little else.

Granted, it’s better than the clusterfuck self-indulgence of “Stardust Memories”, probably the most shameless Fellini-ripoffs in the history of shameless Fellini-ripoffs. Maybe this is why Allen tends to be so laid-back visually, and if so, I don’t fault him for it. Still, I wouldn’t put him anywhere in the same league visually as Lucas, a man whose movies are just as good with the sound turned off (perhaps even better). Press the mute button during a Woody Allen movie, however, and you don’t have a silent film– just the cinematic equivalent of postcards and family photo-albums.

Allen is a talent to be reckoned with, I’m not denying that. I’m just saying that at the end of the day, he’s primarily a literary, rather than cinematic talent. Let’s not start calling him a master of the silver screen– isn’t it enough that he’s a master of the written word?

You said Malick had to answer for not making a film in 20 years, implying that it hurt his “standing.” I will have to beg off searching for the exact quote because if I try to scroll through this thread I may get vertigo!

Bob, the self-consciousness and self-satisfaction of Manhattan is definitely there, but I think the photography is so good that it trasnscends the flaws which attach themselves to the script and performances (despite which I still love the movie, albeit definitely preferring Annie Hall). That’s a matter of opinion, certainly, and I do see where you’re coming from – but whether or not the photography is overly precious, I don’t think we could ever define it as “journeyman.”

And the editing, photography, musical selection, and performances of Allen’s best films are too good for me to limit him to the writer’s ghetto – he’s a great all-around filmmaker, even if he has to work with talented collaborators to achieve his best.

I think one of our primary differences of opinion is that I’m more concerned with high-water marks, while you are focused on consistency, and this definitely informs how we regard certain filmmakers. But I find anything other than the “primarily peaks” viewpoint to be entirely problematic. Should filmmakers be faulted for being prolific – not so much criticized for making bad movies, but considered to have lowered their worth as a director by doing so? What if a director died young and another lived into old age? Does the latter’s decline count against them? How does one weigh the various factors in this regard? That’s why I like to stick to what was achieved when analyzing various filmmakers.

Well, somebody around here has to speak out against Malick every once in a while, and I suppose I’ve volunteered myself for that position. That’s more due to his reputation and its inverse relationship to his output. I admire plenty of filmmakers who aren’t exactly prolific, just a little more regular in their production.

Despite my critcisms, “Manhattan” is a good movie. I just find the screenplay and the visuals work parallel to one another, rather than perpendicular. It feels as though any given Allen script could be fitted to the visuals in that movie. I stand by my opinion that he’s a writer, first, and a director second.

Again, I think there’s a miscommunication between us– I’m just as interested in a director’s high points as their overall consistency. Lang’s one of my favorites, and his caustic personality got in the way of his career in Hollywood as much as the suits who didn’t understand him as much as the more openminded bigwigs at Ufa and Nero, in Germany. Perhaps I’m trained towards consistency because aside from high water marks, filmmakers like him or Nicholas Ray ilk had to strive to put any consistant mark on their films, and I like seeing the glimmer of an auteur’s eye rather than the dull, glassy gaze of a veteran grown cynical after years in the system, either of which could describe Lang to different critics.

Allan, I don’t have too many arguments with your analysis – though I obviously value Spielberg more, it’s more a question of degree – I still see what you’re saying with almost every film. I like Private Ryan A LOT more than you do, but that’s because I think the two big set pieces – particularly the first one – are enough to carry the film, and because I don’t think the rest of it is so bad.

But you’re off-mark on Close Encounters. It contains a withering and nasty portrait of the dissolution of a marriage and a family alongside all the wondrous special effects – Teri Garr is hilariously withering, and as always Spielberg makes a film-within-a-film about the transcendent wonders to be found in mundane domesticity (I think about CE3K and I think as much about the goofy golf discussions, the argument about Pinocchio, and the Budweiser commercials as I do the UFOs) – and the nostalgic ache they evoke when juxtaposed against the mysterious, enticing, yet frightening unknown.

I’d take a film from his craftsman days, ‘Jaws’, two from his auteur hubris days, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ (people may bash it for its influence on the action movie- which is as least as profound as ‘Star Wars’), ‘Empire of the Sun’, and two from his maturity – ‘Schindler’s List’ and ‘Munich’. Though I think his and Lucas’ exciting influence has been incredibly destructive and toxic on movie-making. Nor have they used their power wisely. Welles once had dinner with Spielberg hoping to get cigar money to finish his last project, all Stevie wanted to talk about was ‘Citizen Kane’.

At least Korda’s ‘Thief of Bagdad’ was complemented by ‘The Third Man’

And this is coming from “Mr. Countdown” himself, the supreme purveyor of lists in every manner, shape or form!!! The discussion of Spielberg above, as Bobby J. posed in his comment, took into account the Spielberg films from various periods that he felt rated the most highly. Hence a list here was most appropriate.

Well Bob, Spielberg is one of the few American directors where I feel a list is warranted. Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are the other two. We can’t really make “lists” for Lynch, Malick and Coppola, as they haven’t made enough films for such a venture.

Actually, I meant it in regards to Spielberg and Allen, mostly. All they’ve proven is that they can direct a lot of films and occasionally do something good. That doesn’t really impress me. Even Scorsese– God bless him– has directed just as many duds as gems, when you get right down to it. Still, I’ll take the 50/50 proposition of his hit-or-miss style than Spielberg or Allen’s once-in-a-blue-moon pattern of success.

A little too easy, Bob, the likes of Bergman and Hitchcock had quantity and quality, ditto Buñuel, Mizoguchi, Ozu and numerous others.

Am I saying it to defend Spielberg or Allen? No, I already mentioned Spielberg and I don’t believe Allen has made a single major film since Husbands and Wives in 1992 and a great one since Hannah and Her Sisters. But you will hate that as he’s not a visual director, he’s about characters, observation and one-liners. Criticising Allen for lack of visual flair is like criticising Oscar Wilde for his lack of musical interludes.

Some films are great films inspite of being visually uncinematic – take Kind Hearts and Coronets, All About Eve, to name but two obvious choices, it doesn’t make them less great films.

Bob, you are way too tough on Allen there, I don’t know of anyone who will agree with that. He’s made a dozen GREAT films, no matter how you size things up. Every intellectual blogger who visits this site venerates him, as well they should.

Look you cynical malcontent, I used only the films there to back up my argument. Had I listed all Allen’s films it would have been three-fold. There are many intellectual bloggers here who feel he’s a genius, but I’ll spare you their names. I’ll just say they are here regularly. I happen to agree with them on Allen.

I like his best work, and granted Allan, visual prowess isn’t a prerequisite for a quality director (much as it personally perplexes me to say that). But the reason why Allen’s journeyman visual style bothers me is because it makes his films sometimes hard to distinguish between one another, with the only telling differences being his cinematographers, and whether or not he chooses to shoot in black and white or color. Especially during his Carlo Di Palma period, all his films look pretty much the same to me, and not in a good way. The fact that they largely involve many of the same actors, including Allen himself, playing the same types of characters in the same situations over and over again doesn’t help, either.

Sometimes, Allen perfects his formula– “Annie Hall”, “Manhattan” and “Hanna and Her Sisters” are the best of the classic neurotic Allen stuff. Sometimes he branches out and does something new– “Zelig”, for example, or “Shadows and Fog”, which might be my personal favorite of his. But frankly, so many of Allen’s films go through all the same characters, storylines, surroundings and aesthetics that there really isn’t much point in telling the difference. He falls into routine. With few exceptions like the ones I’ve mentioned above, if you’ve seen one Woody Allen film, you’ve more or less seen them all.

As for the other fellas– Bergman and Bunuel had quality and quantity, yes, as did Kurosawa, Godard, Lang and Ford. Directors like that either take a while to build to their masterpieces– Bergman and Ford, for example– or start out strong in terrific runs and then peter out after years. Godard’s strongest period was easily the 60’s, and Bunuel’s later French works don’t hold a candle to his Mexican masterpieces. Even Kurosawa lost some steam in his transition to widescreen and color filmmaking, and didn’t come back in full force until 80’s marvels “Kagemusha” and “Ran”. Then, of course, you’ve got odd ducks like Fritz Lang, who probably would’ve had an almost endless streak of perfect films if it weren’t for a whole host of mitigating circumstances– Hitler’s reign in WWII, the creative blockades in the Hollywood system, his infamous inability to do anything to the hand that fed him except sink his teeth into it.

Quality and quantity can go hand in hand, yes, but it’s rare, and never perfect. But when the two do overlap, of course, strict attention should be paid in full.

This thread or any other thread can NEVER and should never go long enough. You can thank Bob Clark for stimulating the may directions it has gone in. The last think any one of us wnat to do is show anything remotely close to anger for him. Uncompromised gratitude is what’s needed here. I would like 800 comments here, if the discussion is enriched.

You see this man’s priorities. Do anything, say anything for a comment. Actually he wouldn’t sell his children, he’d get his wife to do it and then get someone else to sell her because he’s too busy blogging and canvassing for comments to be present at the sale himself.

Thanks Fred. It is the most comments ever at WitD, not not remotely in the blogosphere. There are political and business sites and other art sites that regular get over 1,000 comments or more on multiple threads. Awards Daily has gotten close to 1,000 during Oscar season on a number of threads. And of course in our inner circle, Ed Howard and company’s wonderful TOERIFC monthly topics on a pre-chosen film, have garnered well over 250 comments. Recently, I believe at Coosa Creek Cinema, Rick Olson’s site, theer were over 300 for the discussion on Renoir’s BONDU, and there was in the range of 250 recently for the talk on BLACK BOOK at Ed’s place. What we got here was monumental for sure, but a number of other sites have has similar fortunes, which is fair enough.

True to form as the resident contrarian I don’t think Allen, Spielberg, or Lucas are ‘great’ directors. Each has made some major films, but never a ‘masterpiece’.

Allen very rarely goes beyond his ultimately banal fascination with his own bourgeois anxieties and intellectual pretensions, though Crimes and Misdemeanors was a very worth effort. And maturity has not made him any less juvenile. Whatever Works is by all accounts more fluff. Vicky Christina Barcelona was yet another adolescent fantasy of the artist hunk who is urbane, handsome, a magnet for women, and who gets threesomes.

Prompted by this discussion I have been doing some reading on Spielberg and Lucas:

“Even when depicting the Holocaust, slavery in America, or the infernal battlefields of World War II in his serious and honorable projects, Spielberg cannot resist sweetening his bitter history lesson with mawkishness and ameliorating sentiment… [he] can never fully adapt his boyish sentiment temperament to weightier material.” (Rough Guide to Film)

“his [Lucas’] productions are pure merchandise rather than art” (The Film Handbook)

Obviously I disagree with the quoted dismissal of Lucas, and even the casual write-off of Spielberg. But that appraisal of Allen pretty much hits the nail on the head regarding some of my biggest issues with him. Allen has his sex-hounded writers and artists, Spielberg has his boy-scout historical heroism, and Lucas has his space-opera divas– who’s to say which one has more cinematic wish-fulfilment than the other?

(I also fail to see how “pure merchandise” and “art” are necessarily opposed to one another in an age that has seen the likes of Warhol and Lichtenstein, to say nothing of respected commercial artists across all mediums in general, but that’s beside the point)

Bob, a false argument here. Lucas is all about product positioning and target markets. Artists have something to say. As a successful entrepreneur he makes films to make more money – good luck to him if that is his idea of a calling – and then merchandises a whole lot of plastic shit that ends up in landfill.

Isn’t that more or less what Warhol did with his pop-art? I’m not just talking about his subject matters– Campbell’s Soup cans and celebrities– but also the method by which much of his work was produced. They called his studio “The Factory” for a reason– teams of underling workers would be tasked with methodically reproducing his prints ad infinitum for series in which he’d want dozens of copies of the same images, often with only minimal differences. Warhol was just as guilty of commercialism in his art as anybody else– he fell upon a trendy, marketable gimmick and he exploited it as fully as he could. He was in love with all the crassy, superficial aspects of the modern fame and money-driven lifestyle, writing (or at least dictating) about it in his “Philosophy of Andy Warhol” and diaries. He wasn’t just commenting on a society that could see art in a soup can or pages from People magazine– he was aspiring to it, as well.

Lucas often called himself “a toymaker who makes film”, even before “Star Wars”. He seems to genuinely like toys and the positive, or at the very least necessary effect they can have on children growing up. As is clear from the opening of “THX 1138”, he’d wanted to make a crazy “Buck Rogers”-style serial all his creative life, so when the chance to make “Star Wars” came, he embraced the merchandise-side not merely as a chance to make money (though that’s part of it– clever of him to see it as a path to financial independence in the shadow of Hollywood’s free-for-all 70’s capitalism) but also as an extension of the movie’s canvas, another opportunity for his vision to be expressed and furthermore a chance to fully make the space opera he’d always wanted, toys and all.

You are quite right in your assessment of Allen’s limitations BUT great art can sometimes be made out of such limitations (call it “focus” and you have one of the criteria for great artists). Vicky Cristina Barcelona and its ilk, while enjoyable fluff by my lights, was of course still fluff and it’s fair to say that Allen, in his own way, is as ensconced in juvenilia – of a different kind – as Lucas and Spielberg. But I think all three are major talents and that two of them are great directors.

I also disagree that none have created a masterpiece, obviously, or I wouldn’t be saying the above. For Lucas I think it might be limited to Star Wars, which is debatable in and of itself though I think it’s such a sui generis classic it deserves major consideration. But Allen has at least got Manhattan and Annie Hall, the former flawed but beautiful, the latter a true comic gem, just about perfect in its scattershot way (though I know you have disagreed with this on Wonders before).

I think all of the following Spielberg films are masterpiece contenders, some as pure popcorn pleasures, others as more “serious” works: Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan. I know several of those picks may be controversial (particularly the last one, though I think its opening battle sequence alone is enough to guarantee its greatness), but at the very least I’d say E.T. and Schindler belong in any pantheon of must-see film classics.

By the way, I do not disagree with the Rough Guide assessment of Spielberg. Schindler’s List is a highly problematic film because there is an uneasy balance between Spielberg’s irrepressible instincts to entertain and his desire to force us to look at something ugly and horrible – there’s also a tension between his instinctive fascination for the power and chutzpah of a crafty and charismatic con man like Schindler (don’t forget how Spielberg conned his way onto the Universal lot and, hence, his entire directorial career) and his more forced sympathy for the Jews, who as cowering victims (which is essentially the way the film portrays them) are not at all natural Spielberg protagonists.

However, I think some of these tensions make the film even more fascinating and, whatever Spielberg’s intention, they make the work – and our confrontation with the Holocaust – more troubling than it might have been if done with “better taste.” Also, any movie which contains such a fascinating portrait of evil and power as Ralph Fiennes’ Goeth and which is as emotionally devastating as this film (I am somewhat desensitized to film violence but this movie still makes my stomach turn – and not just in terms of gore but the way the violence is presented, which of course leads us back to Spielberg’s problematic fluidity with the medium; it may be intellectually objectionable, but it is very, very effective and that’s one way we judge the importance and achievement of a movie).

I disagree with the many who find the final procession past the gravestone mawkish or sentimental. Perhaps there should not have been music over it. Perhaps the camera and editing are a little too manipulative and the event should have been allowed to speak for itself a little more. But I emphatically disagree that the event should not have been included in the film at all, which seems to be the contention of many viewers: it underlines a connection to the reality of the brutality we’ve seen and is absolutely essential to the film’s power as a work of art.

More good thoughts on “Schindler” all around. The passive Jewish characters (save for Ben Kingsley’s sly Stern) of Spielberg’s film are probably the reason why there was such a hungry appetite leftover for more Holocaust movies. Some, like Polanski’s “Pianist” did a great job of humanizing the victims. Others, like Zwick’s “Defiance” wasted their opportunities to tell powerful pieces of history with business-as-usual filmmaking fluff.

As for masterpieces– Am I the only one here who thinks “THX 1138” counts? I mean, I’m a fan of “Star Wars”, and a devoted champion of the Prequel trilogy, but at the end of the day I still think that Lucas’ first film is his best. Is it really too much of an acquired taste?

MovieMan, as always you argue your case lucidly and it really gets down to personal perceptions.

But to my my mind if we are talking masterpieces, while acknowledging that cinema is a collaborative undertaking and for some not art in the classical sense, we need to identify a guiding artistic vision. We can see this in the work of giants such as Bunuel, Lang, Renoir, and Welles, and even in the oeuvre of lesser lights like Ray, Mann, and Fuller. Essentially how has a director used the craft of cinema to express what he wants to say, and is what he has to say worth saying? Lucas and Spielberg don’t make the cut. If you accept Allen’s narrow focus, maybe.

Lucas and Spielberg qualify a little easier than Allen. If he’d been making connected films over his career, like Truffaut with the Antoine Doinel series, then perhaps his tendency to use the same repertoire of actors playing carbon-copy characters from film-to-film would work more.

This thread continues to thrive. Utterly amazing. I am leaving now for a brief trip, but I just read the newest additions, and again thank Bob, Movie Man, Tont, et al, for continuing the dialogue. I will look on later tonight, hopefully. Have a great Sunday everyone.

Top Clicks

Wonders in the Dark is a blog dedicated to the arts, especially film, theatre and music. An open forum is highly encouraged, as the site proctors are usually ready and able to engage with ongoing conversation.